Let's unpack this last paragraph in the per curiam opinion in Andrus v Texas
We conclude that Andrus has shown deficient performance under the first prong of Strickland, and that there is
a significant question whether the Court of Criminal Appeals properly considered prejudice under the second prong
of Strickland. We thus grant Andrus’ petition for a writ of
certiorari and his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, and remand the case for the court to address the
prejudice prong of Strickland in a manner not inconsistent
with this opinion.
- prongs: A prong would be one point in a statute or legal theory that must be proved in conjunction with other prongs.
(as far as I can tell, these are the two prongs at issue: To show deficiency, a defendant must
show that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness.” And to establish
prejudice, a defendant must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,
the result of the proceeding would have been different.”)
- writ of certiorari: A type of writ, meant for rare use, by which an appellate court decides to review a case at its discretion. The word certiorari comes from Law Latin and means "to be more fully informed." A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it.
- in forma pauperis: A Latin term meaning "in the manner of a pauper." Allowing a poor person to bring suit without liability for the costs of the suit.
- vacate: to render inoperative; deprive of validity; void; annul:
- remand: to send back.
