From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Goodman v. Bertrand
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
467 F.3d 1022 (2006)
After an armed robbery of a convenience store, a man confessed to being a lookout and identified Warren Goodman (plaintiff) as the robber. Goodman was arrested. The store’s manager and cashier each failed to identify Goodman from a lineup, but the manager later identified Goodman from a second lineup. At trial, the store manager and the lookout testified that Goodman was the robber. However, the cashier testified that she had not picked Goodman from the lineup and was not sure he was the robber. The trial ended with a hung jury. At Goodman’s second trial, the lookout, the store manager, and two getaway drivers testified that Goodman was the robber. However, Goodman’s attorney did not subpoena the cashier because he thought the prosecution would call her, nor did he lay the necessary foundation to introduce her prior testimony. Thus, the second jury never heard the cashier’s testimony that she was unsure whether Goodman was the robber. In addition, Goodman’s attorney (1) mistakenly opened the door for evidence that Goodman had committed two prior armed robberies, (2) let the jury believe that Goodman had threatened witnesses without a legitimate evidentiary basis, (3) did not preserve objections to Goodman’s inability to confront witnesses, and (4) did not object or request a mistrial when the prosecution made multiple inaccurate statements falsely strengthening the credibility of the lookout and the getaway drivers. Goodman was convicted. Goodman appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The state courts denied Goodman’s appeals, finding that Goodman had failed to prove that any individual error by his attorney was so bad that Goodman’s trial was fundamentally unfair or unreliable. Goodman then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied Goodman’s petition, and Goodman appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.