Search for: "Garcia v. Quarterman"
Results 1 - 12
of 12
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2008, 2:50 pm
Quarterman. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 8:49 am
Quarterman, via Oyez. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 3:05 pm
Quarterman (08-6631) to provide new guidance. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 8:19 am
Garcia Issue: Whether jury instructions in the defendant's capital murder trial were sufficient under Abdul-Kabir v. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 3:00 am
Garcia-Lara
• Williams v. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 7:07 am
Garcia, 07-1052). [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 1:21 pm
App. 2013)); or Minnesota (Chambers v. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:01 pm
Quarterman, No. 09-70013 In a capital murder case, the denial of Defendant's motions for a stay of execution and appointment of counsel for clemency purposes is affirmed, where: 1) there was no habeas petition pending, and therefore the District Court had no jurisdiction to enjoin the execution; and 2) there was no showing of additional evidence that could be presented in clemency proceedings. . [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
Quarterman, No. 06-70024 Grant of conditional habeas relief on a claim of judicial bias from a conviction for capital murder and death sentence is vacated and relief denied where: 1) although various comments and actions by the trial judge both on and off the bench were highly improper; nevertheless, 2) under the AEDPA's highly deferential standard, a state habeas court's decision was neither an unreasonable application of controlling Supreme Court precedent, nor did it involve an… [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 7:13 am
Quarterman, No. 07-70004 Denial of an application for a certificate of appealability following denial of habeas relief is affirmed in part, but reversed in part where, in light of the recent decision in Snyder v. [read post]
13 Sep 2009, 7:24 pm
See Garcia v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:35 am
Quarterman, No. 03-20401 "Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital murder case is affirmed over claims of error regarding whether: 1) trial counsel provided ineffective representation; and 2) jury instructions given at the sentencing phase of his trial violated his constitutional rights pursuant to Penry v. [read post]
