Marks Bros. Paving Co. v. Ouellet

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• inferring that the PCRA court found a particular witness to be credible where it relied heavily upon that witness’s testimony
• providing that petitioners must establish prejudice in order to prevail on ineffectiveness claims
• discussing claims of structural error and the presumption of prejudice under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)
• “vouching for a witness’s veracity is improper because it places the prestige of the government behind the witness through personal assurances that the witness is believable, and it indicates that information unknown to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”
• “[Cjounsel's performance [is] judged by the prevailing professional standards in existence at the time of trial.”
• on collateral attack, defendant alleged that trial counsel’s lack of experience amounted to constructive denial of counsel implicating structural error, and warranting presumption of prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).