Brian Daniels, AKA Brian Triplett v. Alan M. Uchtman

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that when the facts pertinent to a petitioner’s Brady claim could in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered at an earlier date, that date marks the commencement of the AEDPA limitations period
• noting that information supporting petitioner’s Brady claim could have been discovered more than one year prior to petitioner’s filing of his federal habeas petition
• noting that information supporting petitioner’s Brady claim could have been discovered more than one year prior to petitioner’s filing of his federal habeas petition
• noting that information supporting petitioner’s Brady claim could have been discovered more than one year prior to petitioner’s filing of his federal habeas petition
• finding that the factual predicate of inmate’s due process claim occurred when witness executed affidavit recanting his trial testimony, and statute of limitations accrued on that date under § 2244(d)(1)(D)
• factual predicate for timeliness purposes was date the prosecution’s witness executed affidavit recanting trial testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).