Rose v. McNeil

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a petitioner did not establish the prejudice prong of Strickland in part because there was “substantial evidence in aggravation”
• holding that a petitioner did not establish the prejudice prong of Strickland in part because there was “substantial evidence in aggravation”
• stating that deference under AEDPA requires that a federal habeas court do more than simply disagree with the factual findings of the state court; “[i]nstead, it must conclude that the state court’s findings lacked even fair support in the record”
• “[A] petitioner cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test with evidence that is merely cumulative of evidence already presented at trial”
• “[A] petitioner cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test with evidence that is merely cumulative of evidence already presented at trial.”
• “[A] petitioner cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test with evidence that is merely cumulative of evidence already presented at trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).