Melanie Cambridge v. Andrew Cambridge

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no prejudice where “the evidence [the defendant] claims should have been introduced goes to a theory of mitigation that the jury found did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances”
• finding no prejudice in counsel’s failure to present additional evidence on a mitigation theory that the jury heard a version of and found did not outweigh the aggravating factors
• applying pre-AEDPA standards to a habeas petition filed pursuant to § 2254 because “no state court reviewed the merits of [the] claim”
• applying pre-AEDPA standards to a habeas petition filed pursuant to § 2254 because “no state court reviewed the merits of [the] claim”
• finding no prejudice in counsel’s failure to present additional evidence on a mitigation theory that the jury heard a version of and found did not outweigh the aggravating factors
• finding no prejudice where “the evidence [the defendant] claims should have been introduced goes to a theory of mitigation that the jury found did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).