Anibal Canales, Jr. v. William Stephens, Director

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court was correct in denying a Giglio/Napue claim when the petitioner did not establish that the testimony was false
• holding that the district court was correct in denying a Giglio/Napue claim when the petitioner did not establish that the State knew the testimony was false
• holding prejudice under Brady not shown where undisclosed evidence cumulative of other admitted evidence
• a conviction obtained through false evidence known to be such by representatives of the State violates a defendant’s constitutional rights
• a Brady claim requires a showing that the evidence at issue was “suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently”
• “reasonable likelihood that the false testimony affected the judgment of the jury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).