Legal Opinion

Killingsworth v. BENSKO

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided September 1, 2005No. 05 C 941PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

FILIP, District Judge.

Petitioner, Erik Killingsworth (“Killings-worth” or “Petitioner”), has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on the grounds that (1) he was not fully advised of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective under the teachings of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for failing to move to suppress his confession. (D.E. I (“Petition”).) 1 For the reasons stated below, the Petition is denied.

I. BACKGROUND…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. O'Sullivan v. BoerckelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  5. Woodford v. VisciottiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Clay v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 2018
  2. United States v. ClayDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018
  3. United States v. MillerDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018
  4. Wilkerson v. VargaDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API