(United States Fifth Circuit) – On a habeas petition, held that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on a federal inmate’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. It was error not to hold a hearing.
(United States Ninth Circuit) – Held that a California inmate’s federal habeas petition was untimely. Affirmed its dismissal, concluding that no grounds existed here for statutory tolling.
(United States Ninth Circuit) – Held that the district court failed to properly analyze a Nevada state prisoner’s habeas petition. Vacated and remanded for further consideration of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
(United States Seventh Circuit) – Held that an Indiana inmate was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus based on his attorney’s failure to object to an untimely amendment to his charges. Reversed the denial of habeas relief.
(United States Second Circuit) – Held that a New York inmate convicted of murder‐for‐hire was entitled to federal habeas relief, in this case where he claimed that the prosecutors knowingly offered perjured testimony at his trial. Reversed the denial of his habeas petition.
(United States Second Circuit) – Held that a federal inmate’s habeas corpus petition should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because the requirements of the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255(e) were not satisfied here.
(United States Fifth Circuit) – On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief to a man convicted of capital murder. Held that his earlier-rejected claim of intellectual disability could not be considered further in light of the recent decision Shoop v. Hill, ___ S. Ct. ___ (Jan. 7, 2019).
(United States Second Circuit) – Held that a New York inmate was entitled to federal habeas relief based on a Confrontation Clause violation. At the murder trial a detective testified about an alleged accomplice’s statement, and there was no opportunity to cross-examine the accomplice. Reversed the denial of habeas relief.
(United States Fifth Circuit) – Held that a habeas petition was not successive because the previous habeas petition had challenged a judgment distinct from the one at issue here. Reversed and remanded.
(United States Seventh Circuit) – Held that an Indiana inmate was entitled to federal habeas relief. His due process rights were violated because the state withheld evidence, specifically, by failing to disclose that the only witness who could identify him was hypnotized before trial to enhance his recollection. Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant …