Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Loving v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided July 17, 2009No. 06-8006/ARPublished

1ConcurrenceStucky, Judge

I have concerns similar to those raised by Judge Ryan regarding the appropriateness of applying to the review of this Court’s own previous decisions the same habeas standards, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006), as federal courts apply in habeas reviews of state court decisions. Judge Ryan also makes an interesting point about our habeas corpus jurisdiction in cases in which direct appellate review has been completed. I write separately today, however, solely because I am convinced that the defense team’s performance was not deficient. I concur with the majority’s conclusion that, in any event,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  4. United States v. LovingCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1994
  5. United States v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2001

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API