Wiedekind v. Tuolumne County Water Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that this Court is “not required to find identical cases for comparison in [its] proportionality review”
• explaining that seldom, if ever, will the facts surrounding two death penalty cases be entirely alike and that this Court is not required to find identical cases for comparison in its proportionality review
• explaining that seldom, if ever, will the facts surrounding two death penalty cases be entirely alike and that this Court is not required to find identical cases for comparison in its proportionality review
• explaining that seldom, if ever, will the facts surrounding two death penalty cases be entirely alike and that this Court is not required to find identical cases for comparison in its proportionality review
• assuming trial counsel were deficient in failing to present certain types of mitigating evidence but refusing to consider in the prejudice analysis the type of mitigating evidence that counsel discussed presenting with the defendant but that the defendant instructed counsel not to present
• no prejudice shown from counsel’s failure to request a charge where defendant’s own testimony would not support the charge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).