MINICHELLO ET AL.

v.

CAMP, COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Washington v. Strickland, 693 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1982)
  …ndards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Defense Function (App.Draft 1971) [hereinafter referred to as American Bar Association Standards]; see Coles v. Peyton, 389 F. 2d 224, 226 (4th Cir.) (applying identical standard), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 849, 89 S.Ct. 80, 21 L.Ed.2d 120 (1968). When an attorney makes a strategic choice after satisfying this rigorous and extensive duty to investigate, courts will seldom if ever find that the choice was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Ou…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 1975)
  …imately seven weeks prior to trial, was afforded more than a reasonable opportunity to prepare Irby’s defense, we are concerned here with the effect rather than the fault of the delay. Coles v. Peyton (4th Cir. 1968) 389 F. 2d 224, 226, cert. denied 393 U.S. 849, 89 S.Ct. 80, 21 L.Ed.2d 120 (1968). Notwithstanding counsel’s delay, we are convinced that Irby was adequately represented at trial. Counsel had been provided complete access to the Government’s file. He was familiar with the Government’s case agai…
• Starnes v. Honorable Matthew F. McGUIRE, 512 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
  …cessary to elicit matters of defense, or to ascertain that potential defenses are unavailable. Counsel should discuss fully potential strategies and tactical choices with his client.” See also Coles v. Peyton, 389 F. 2d 224 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 849, 89 S.Ct. 80, 21 L.Ed.2d 120 (1968); Cf. Hawk v. Olsen, 326 U.S. 271, 66 S.Ct. 116, 90 L.Ed. 61 (1945); American Bar Association, Standards for the Defense Function 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 8.5 (Approved Draft 1971). Most prisoner petitions for mandamus or d…