Legal Opinion
Hummel v. Rosemeyer
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided April 29, 2009No. 06-2711PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
We are once again faced with the need to determine whether the state court determination that counsel representing a petitioner in a state court criminal action provided competent counsel as required by ttle Sixth Amendment survives our review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Edward Hummel, who is missing a portion of his brain after a self-inflicted gunshot wound, sought a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his trial counsel failed to perform up to the constitutional standard when he (1) stipulated that Hummel was competent to stand trial and (2) did not…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Dusky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Breakiron v. HornCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- Saranchak v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- Showers v. BeardCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- United States v. SampsonDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011
- Blakeney v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.