Chrysler v. Guiney, No. 14-1485 (2d Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of murder and drug possession, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief, alleging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner alleged that counsel was ineffective because his attorneys failed to argue on direct appeal that the admission at trial of a co-defendant's grand jury testimony violated petitioner's rights under the Confrontation Clause. The court affirmed the district court's judgment because the state court's decision was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal and Supreme Court law. In this case, the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington where petitioner failed to show that any fairminded jurist would conclude that appellate counsel’s omission of a challenge to the admission of the grand jury testimony - which petitioner expressly acquiesced to at trial - fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.