Legal Opinion
Charles Hemstreet v. Charles Greiner, Superintendent
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided August 2, 2004No. Docket 02-2747PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ON RECONSIDERATION
OAKES, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petitioner sought habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis that his trial and appellate counsel did not seek a remedy for the state’s intimidation before trial of a vital defense witness. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles S. Brieant, Judge, granted the petition, finding that the trial and appellate counsels’ omissions were not a matter of trial strategy. In Hemstreet v. Greiner, 367 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.2004), the district court’s judgment was affirmed. On sua sponte…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Ernesto Quintieri, Carlo DonatoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- Louis Eze v. Daniel A. Senkowski, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Richard Diguglielmo v. Joseph T. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Charles Hemstreet v. Charles Greiner, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Dunton v. County of SuffolkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Nuradin Ahmed v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
- Gomez v. BrownDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Charles Hemstreet v. Charles Greiner, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Washington 1993, Inc. v. Hudson (In Re Hudson)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · 2009
- Ahmed, Nuradin v. Ashcroft, JohnCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.