Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 7 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Goodwin v. Cruz-Padillo.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Goodwin v. Cruz-Padillo Anchor | green | “in assessing the prejudicial effect of counsel's failure to call a witness (whether that failure resulted from a tactical decision, negligent oversight, or otherwise), a petitioner is required to make an affirmative showing that specifically demonstrates how counsel's failure wo…” | 5 |
| 2 | Dickens v. State | green | “either the uncalled witness must testify or the defendant must introduce a legally recognized substitute for the uncalled witness's testimony.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.