Pedro Vega v. Charles Ryan

How courts have described this case

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

• finding Strickland prejudice because of “a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• reviewing, under § 2254(d)(2), a \state court's findings that [a witness's] testimony would have been cumulative and would have had no effect on the verdict\
• finding Strickland prejudice because of “a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• “We further conclude that the state court’s findings that Father Dan’s testimony would have been cumulative and would have had no effect on the verdict is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).