People v. Pisano

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that evidence that petitioner had attention deficit disorder “would not have added in any meaningful way to ... mitigation evidence [that was introduced]”
• concluding that evidence that petitioner had attention deficit disorder “would not have added in any meaningful way to . . . mitigation evidence [that was introduced]”
• finding that counsel’s failure to present additional evidence at sentencing did not establish prejudice because that evidence would have been “largely cumulative”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).