PALAFOX

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By

• Marquard v. Sec'y FOR THE Dep't OF Corr., 429 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2005)
  …shackling did not contribute to the verdict. The problem for Marquard is that Deck establishes a new rule that does not apply retroactively to Marquard’s § 2254 petition. See Turner v. Crosby, 339 F. 3d 1247, 1282-83 (11th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1034, 124 S.Ct. 2104, 158 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310-313, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1075-77, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). Under Teague, “a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the F…
• Michael v. Crosby, 430 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2005)
  …ntitled to relief. Id. at 697, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.' Thus, we need not address the prejudice prong if we find that the performance prong is not satisfied. Turner v. Crosby, 339 F. 3d 1247, 1279 (11th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1034, 124 S.Ct. 2104, 158 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004); Holladay v. Haley, 209 F. 3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir.2000) (“Because both parts of the test must be satisfied in order to show a violation of the Sixth Amendment, the court need not address the performance prong…