Pole v. Randolph

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a state court’s factual findings are presumed to be correct, unless the petitioner “rebuts them with clear and convincing evidence.”
• considering “the last state court to consider the . . . issue” as the relevant opinion
• opting to “assume that counsel’s performance was deficient and move on to the second part of the analysis” because the petitioner could not show prejudice
• refusing to assume trial counsel failed to investigate potential defense witnesses where defendant failed to substantiate his claim with evidentiary support
• opting to “assume that counsel’s performance was deficient and move on to the second part of the analysis” because the petitioner could not show prejudice
• under section 2254’s exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must assert his federal claim through one complete round of state court review, either on direct review or in post-conviction proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).