Search for: "Brady v. State of California"
Results 261 - 280
of 302
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Dec 2008, 11:45 am
California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 3:45 pm
Branker, No. 0171p.pdf In a conviction and death sentence for capital murder, denial of petition for federal writ of habeas corpus relief is affirmed where: 1) the state motion for appropriate relief (MAR) court's determination that production of the undisclosed evidence would not have resulted in a different verdict, either at guilt or sentencing, in petitioner's trial for the murder was not an unreasonable one; 2) given the similarities in the murders, the evidence that the same… [read post]
5 Nov 2008, 12:44 am
In Van de Kamp v. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 7:03 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, October 27, 2008 US v. [read post]
27 Oct 2008, 3:49 pm
encing facts were properly submitted to the jury; 11) the indictment was sufficient, as was the evidence supporting various counts; 12) a Brady claim was meritless; and 13) there was no plain error as to jury instructions regarding "Conspiracy" and "aiding and abetting". [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 3:20 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, October 08, 2008 US v. [read post]
29 Sep 2008, 7:50 pm
Alexander, No. 071780 In a conviction for sale of controlled substance in or near school grounds, denial of writ of habeas corpus is affirmed over claims that the state courts unreasonably applied Batson v. [read post]
25 Sep 2008, 1:40 pm
[09/24] US v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Horn, No. 03-9010, 03-9011 In a capital-murder case, petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted where: 1) the time period for filing the petition was tolled during state-court proceedings, and the federal petition was therefore timely; 2) the state fugitive-forfeiture rule did not apply to procedurally default the petition; 3) the jury instructions and verdict sheet that were used during the penalty phase of petitioner's trial denied him due process of law pursuant to… [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:17 pm
State of Tennessee, No. 06-6208 In civil rights suit alleging that city police discriminated against plaintiffs in violation of the Ame [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mitchell, No. 02-3505 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is reversed where: 1) a state court applied the Strickland standard in an objectively unreasonable manner for purposes of claims that petitioner's counsel were ineffective in preparing for the sentencing phase of his trial; 2) the state court unreasonably determined that the alleged errors of trial counsel did not prejudice petitioner's case; and 3) a state court erroneously… [read post]
23 Aug 2008, 1:23 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: DRM for streaming music dies a quiet death: (Electronic Frontier Foundation), (Techdirt) CAFC decides Apotex and Impax infringed AstraZeneca’s Prilosec patents: (Law360), (Patent Prospector), (Patent Docs), (GenericsWeb), CAFC upholds lower court’s decision finding USPTO was within its rights to subject a Cooper patent to… [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm
Kaylo, No. 07-30024 Denial of a habeas corpus petition alleging that state prosecutors had committed Brady violations is reversed where the prosecution had withheld material impeachment evidence during defendant's manslaughter trial. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 10:00 pm
State of California, 72 Cal. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
Haviland, No. 07-3380 Grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) petitioner sought to represent himself at trial, and the trial court's failure to rule on his requests to proceed pro se deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation; and 2) state courts' objectiv [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 8:09 pm
" This is known as a harmless error, from California v. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Supreme Court, June 02, 2008 US v. [read post]
27 May 2008, 9:50 am
Ctr. for Women v. [read post]
19 May 2008, 8:55 am
Supreme Court, May 12, 2008 Gonzales v. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:35 pm
Cox, No. 07-1103 In an action alleging vindictive prosecution against Michigan's Attorney General, a state Supreme Court Justice, and the state's Secretary of State, as well as others in the AG's office, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims and imposition of sanctions against them are affirmed where: 1) because the issues raised in a state court were substantially the same as those raised in the district court, because those interests implicated… [read post]
