Legal Opinion · Dissent

James Hardy v. Kevin Chappell, Warden

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 11, 2016No. 13-56289Published

1DissentCallahan, Circuit Judge

This is a standard habeas case governed by AEDPA that requires us to evaluate the reasonableness of the state court’s determination that an error — here, an error made by defense counsel — was not prejudicial. In a unanimous 57-page opinion, the California Supreme Court found that under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), James Edward Hardy did not receive competent representation from his trial- lawyer, who failed to discover evidence tending to show that Hardy was not the person who stabbed the mother and child to death. In re Hardy, 41 Cal.4th…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Woodford v. VisciottiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  4. In Re HardyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000

11 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