Vincent Fischetti v. Philip Johnson Gerald J. Pappert.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the state court’s conclusion that defendant had forfeited his right to counsel was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
• holding that the state court's conclusion that defendant had forfeited his right to counsel was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
• holding that ineffective assistance argument made to excuse procedural default should be reviewed de novo
• holding that an ineffective assistance claim alleged as cause is subject to AEDPA principles
• holding that the state court’s conclusion that defendant had forfeited his right to counsel was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
• noting that, as between the right to self-representation and the right to counsel, right to counsel “is the presumptive default position”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).