Legal Opinion
Visciotti v. Martel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 17, 2016No. 11-99008PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Concurrence by
Judge BERZON
ORDER
The opinion filed October 17, 2016 is amended as follows:
1. At page 48, footnote 15 of the opinion, delete “Because we conclude that counsel’s performance was not deficient, we do not consider the prejudice prong of the Strickland, analysis.” Add the following text in its place:
The Supreme Court has recently held that a petitioner claiming that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the closure of voir dire bears the burden of demonstrating prejudice. Weaver v. Massachusetts, No. 16-240, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1899, 198 L.Ed.2d 420, *7532017 WL…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Murray v. CarrierSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Richard L Sealey v. Warden GDCP.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
- Tiffany Hill v. Xerox Business Services, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2023
- Dwight Tamplin, Jr. v. William MunizCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- (HC) Armstrong v. AsuncionDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
- (HC) Castillo v. HattonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.