Moseley v. Gilham

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that when the state court neglected to articulate which prong of Strickland was deficient, the federal habeas court ought to evaluate both prongs of Strickland
• holding that Ninth Circuit erred in concluding 19 trial counsel engaged in deficient performance by not moving to exclude a confession 20 before advising client to take a plea bargain early in the proceedings
• explaining that, under AEDPA's \contrary to\ analysis, a federal habeas court may not \transpose[] [a Supreme Court holding] into a novel context\
• stating that “the relevant question under Strickland” is whether “no competent attorney” would have taken the complained-of course of action
• explaining that the prejudice inquiry \is whether [the defendant] established the reasonable probability that he would not have entered his plea but for his counsel's deficiency\
• explaining that the prejudice inquiry “is whether [the defendant] established the reasonable probability that he would not have entered his plea but for his counsel’s deficiency”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).