concluding that, while the defendant’s conduct was not as extreme as the conduct of the defendant in Landrigan, the court still followed Landrigan by “drawing a distinction between a defendant’s passive non-cooperation and his active instruction to counsel not to engage in certain conduct”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that, while the defendant’s conduct was not as extreme as the conduct of the defendant in Landrigan, the court still followed Landrigan by “drawing a distinction between a defendant’s passive non-cooperation and his active instruction to counsel not to engage in certain conduct”
- holding that attorney was not ineffective for failing to challenge voluntariness of confes sion when police had probable cause to arrest the defendant’s girlfriend at the time they threatened him with her arrest
- finding no deficient performance in counsel’s failure to hire independent mental health expert after (1) court-appointed competency experts evaluated defendant and reported he was not suffering from psychological defect at time of murder, and (2) counsel’s observations of defendant showed nothing indicating mental illness
- holding that a petitioner had not been prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to present child abuse evidence and noting that several decades had elapsed between the murder and the abuse
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by Judge Tjoflat’s opinion, and I join all of the opin *1218 ion except Part V.A.4, which I admire as erudite writing, and which I think is very probably entirely accurate and sound. However, I conclude that I need not address or resolve those complex issues. To resolve this case, I can assume, arguendo (but not decide), that Williams, Wiggins, and Rompilla 1 are fully applicable, but that the state habeas court’s decision is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law (as determined by the Supreme Court) including those cases.
. The citations for the three cases are respectively: Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 , 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003); and Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 , 125 S.Ct. 2456 , 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005).