Supreme Court hears case of death row
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1401810300.jpg|width="180" height="122" alt=""|_##]The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that a US district judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow an Arizona death row inmate to pursue an ineffective assistance of counsel claim after the inmate refused to allow his lawyer to present mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing. In Schriro v. Landrigan, the defendant told the trial judge that he did not wish his lawyer to present mitigating evidence during sentencing, but then later attempted to obtain post-conviction relief because his lawyer failed to conduct further investigation into mitigating circumstances.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision in the case. The majority wrote:
In cases where an applicant for federal habeas relief is not barred from obtaining an evidentiary hearing by 28 U. S. C. §2254(e)(2), the decision to grant such a hearing rests in the discretion of the district court. Here, the District Court determined that respondent could not make out a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and therefore was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. It did so after reviewing the state-court record and expanding the record to include additional evidence offered by the respondent. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the hearing. We hold that it did not.
Read the Court's opinion per Justice Thomas, along with a dissent from Justice Stevens.
Related listings
-
Laporte Teen Accused of Shooting In Court
Lawyer Blogs 05/12/2007The Laporte teen accused of shooting his ex-girlfriend and himself last month was at the center of an emotionally charged court appearance this morning.Nineteen year-old Timothy Schaub was crying as he entered the courtroom, wearing a helmet because ...
-
Monica Goodling granted immunity in DOJ probe
Lawyer Blogs 05/11/2007[##_1L|1144467512.jpg|width="120" height="101" alt=""|_##]US District Judge Thomas Hogan approved an offer of immunity Friday for former Department of Justice aide Monica Goodling, clearing the way for Goodling's testimony before Congress on the firi...
-
Alleged flasher eyed in sex assaults
Lawyer Blogs 05/10/2007[##_1L|1300379934.bmp|width="250" height="138" alt=""|_##]A Santa Fe man suspected of stripping to his underwear in a local business was arrested today and quickly became a ‘person of interest’ in a series of sexual assaults. For now David Giba is be...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.