outcome test in Alabama

2013Third, and finally, it is not true that allowing “the waiver of the jury-swearing claim, [would] effectively allow[ ] the waiver of [an] ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.” Fortner, supra. As an example, a claim that a defendant was denied a fair trial based on the State’s use of peremptory strikes is procedurally barred in the postconviction setting, but an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on the same allegation may still be raised in a first, timely filed petition for postconviction relief.

2013“Mr. Crespi was forced at the time to make a strategic decision and he seriously considered both options, weighed the risks and benefits, and rather than gambling his entire defense with the outcome of the test, which was uncertain, he made a reasoned and professional judgment to attack the State’s lack of testing and rely on a favorable cross-examination of Dr. Parades. [Benjamin] has offered no evidence that Mr. Crespi did not make an objectively reasonable and educated strategic decision to forgo independent testing of the victim’s pants. ‘Strategic choices made after a thorough investigati

2005In fact, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. at 89 , 97 S.Ct. 274 , although in a different context, some delay in holding a final revocation hearing may be more beneficial than prejudicial to an alleged parole violator where the only remaining inquiry is whether facts and circumstances exist to mitigate the Board's predilection to revoke parole: "Finally, there is a practical aspect to consider, for in cases such as this, in which the parolee admits or has been convicted of an offense plainly constituting a parole violation, the only remaining inquiry is whether con

2005In fact, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. at 89 , 97 S.Ct. 274 , although in a different context, some delay in holding a final revocation hearing may be more beneficial than prejudicial to an alleged parole violator where the only remaining inquiry is whether facts and circumstances exist to mitigate the Board's predilection to revoke parole: "Finally, there is a practical aspect to consider, for in cases such as this, in which the parolee admits or has been convicted of an offense plainly constituting a parole violation, the only remaining inquiry is whether con

1985In Duncan v. State , 369 So.2d 885 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), the court held that the appellant could not gamble on the outcome and then claim error.

1984Grant v. *Page 1098 City of Mobile , 50 Ala. App. 684 , 282 So.2d 285 (1973).

1984Grant v. *Page 1098 City of Mobile , 50 Ala. App. 684 , 282 So.2d 285 (1973).

1981See Aluminum Company of America v. United States , 30 F. Supp. 676 (Ct.Cl. 1940), modified , 32 F. Supp. 767 (Ct.Cl. 1940); Aluminum Company of America v. United States , 30 F. Supp. 686 (Ct.Cl. 1940).

1981See Aluminum Company of America v. United States, 30 F.Supp. 676 (Ct.Cl. 1940), modified, 32 F.Supp. 767 (Ct.Cl.1940); Aluminum Company of America v. United States, 30 F.Supp. 686 (Ct.Cl.1940).