Clarence Ray Allen v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of the California State Prison at San Quentin

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “mitigation witnesses proffered by [the defendant] would not have proved helpful given their own involvement in [the defendant’s criminal enterprise.”
• explaining that “mitigation witnesses proffered by [the defendant] would not have proved helpful given their own involvement in [the defendant’s criminal enterprise.”
• explaining that “mitigation witnesses proffered by [the defendant] would not have proved helpful given their own involvement in [the defendant]’s criminal enterprise.”
• explaining the difference between “humanizing” and “explanatory” mitigation
• “Although the trial 21 court erred as a matter of state law by considering in its review of the jury's verdict presentence 22 reports that had not been considered by the jury, that error neither prejudiced Allen nor denied 23 him his Eighth Amendment or due process rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).