Perkins v. Patients' Compensation Fund

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that federal courts “should decide whether an underlying ineffectiveness claim succeeds considering only the state court record”
• holding that Ramirez did not abrogate the circuit’s holding that AEDPA does not forbid factual development regarding excusing procedural default
• finding that the Strickland standard may not excuse counsel’s conduct based solely on a witnesses’ willingness to testify because testimony could be compelled through a subpoena
• noting that AEDPA’s prohibition is not limited to formal evidentiary hearings and applies whenever the petitioner wants to expand the record beyond that developed in state court
• holding, after Shinn, that while prosecution failed to identify a strategic justification in the record for defense counsel’s actions, “it [was] not difficult to identify one.” (quotation omitted)
• clarifying that, after Shinn, the proper procedure for determining whether to excuse a petitioner’s procedural default is to first “decide whether an underlying ineffectiveness claim succeeds considering only the state court record” before holding a Martinez hearing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).