United States of America, (Docket Nos. 83-1204, 83-1205) v. Charles O. Dukes, and Charles O. Dukes, (Docket No. 83-2185) v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• “the usual method of challenging trial counsel’s performance is through a collateral attack on the conviction”
• longer timeframe not available for Rule 33 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence relating to ineffective assistance of counsel
• “[C]ollateral attack is not a substitute for direct appeal and petitioners are therefore generally required to exhaust direct appeal before bringing a petition under § 2255.”
• “In the event that counsel accused of being incompetent is not called to testify or present evidence, the district court, before making any determination that counsel was incompetent, should provide counsel with that opportunity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).