Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dendel v. Washington

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided May 9, 2016No. 15-2000Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSuhrheinrich, Circuit Judge

While I agree with the majority’s resolution of the Confrontation Clause issue, I disagree with its conclusion that the Michigan state courts’ rejection of Dendel’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” — the standard state prisoners must overcome to receive habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). This standard “severely constrains” our review. Smith v. Anderson, 632 F.3d 277, 281 (6th Cir.2011). For ineffective assistance…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. Woodford v. VisciottiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. Renico v. LettSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  5. Rompilla v. BeardSupreme Court of the United States · 2005

4 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