Template:Did you know nominations/Bell v. Cone


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Bell v. Cone

 * ... that one commentator predicted that a 2002 United States Supreme Court ruling would lead to a "dim future" for prisoners? Source: "Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell v. Cone, many state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief for ineffective assistance claims may face a dim future." (Quoted from this article at p. 1288)
 * ALT1: ... that one commentator predicted that a 2002 United States Supreme Court ruling would make "state court holdings practically unchallengeable on the merits"? Source: "Bell v. Cone illustrated that the deference given to state court conclusions, viewed in light of Strickland's presumption of reasonable professional conduct by counsel, made the state court holdings practically unchallengeable on the merits." (Quoted from this article at p.594)
 * Reviewed: Amy Richlin

Created by Notecardforfree (talk). Self-nominated at 00:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Length, Date, and Cite checkout for both hooks - QPQ is from two weeks ago but still looks good. Mifter (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)