explaining that “the Supreme Court has ruled that an attorney’s failure to combat the prosecution must be ‘complete’ in order to avoid the prejudice requirement” and that in capital sentencing context, “if the attorney presents any mitigating evidence, then actual prejudice must be shown”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “the Supreme Court has ruled that an attorney’s failure to combat the prosecution must be ‘complete’ in order to avoid the prejudice requirement” and that in capital sentencing context, “if the attorney presents any mitigating evidence, then actual prejudice must be shown”
- explaining that in making a determination if the lack of funds rendered a petitioner’s trial fundamentally unfair, the court reviews “example[s] of evidence [the Petitioner] could have presented had the trial court granted his requests for assistance”
- explaining that the additional requirements in Moore and Stephens should not be considered in determining a trial court's reasonableness in denying funds if the trial occurred before those cases were decided
- holding that Ake is violated only when a court denies a timely request for an expert, denial of the request is unreasonable, and the denial renders the trial “fundamentally unfair”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1211 EDMONDSON, Chief Judge,
concurring in the result.
I also would affirm the district court’s judgment. I believe the A/ce-based claim has weaknesses beyond the one pointed to by Judge Wilson.