Virgil v. Dretke

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 Supreme Court’s treatment of the right to an impartial jury is more than a mere backdrop to our analysis; it is the lens through 21 which we must examine counsel’s performance in this case”
• recognizing “the fundamental nature 32 of the impartial jury and the consistent line of Supreme Court precedent enforcing it”
• concluding defense counsel’s affidavit did not justify his performance, as it failed to explain why he did not challenge the jurors for cause or why he allowed them to serve on the jury
• concluding defense counsel’s affidavit did not justify his performance, as it failed to explain why he did not challenge the jurors for cause or why he allowed them to serve on the jury
• “Prejudice is presumed in a narrow category of cases, none of which is present here.”
• “Prejudice is presumed in a narrow category of cases, none of which is present here.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).