Legal Opinion
Glass v. Vaughn
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 13, 1994No. Civ. A. 91-0963PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOHN, District Judge.
Petitioner, Commer Glass, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. The reason alleged for the ineffectiveness is that counsel failed to investigate and pursue a defense that petitioner’s post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) negated his ability to form the requisite criminal intent for the charge of murder in the first degree of which he was convicted.
After receiving an initial report and recommendation, the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Murray v. CarrierSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- McCleskey v. ZantSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Harris v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Glass v. VaughnCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Neal-Cooper Grain Company v. KissingerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1974
- Glass v. VaughnCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- McNaughton v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
- United States Ex Rel. Patosky v. KozakiewiczDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1997