Davarius Smith v. State of Tennessee
Syllabus
The Petitioner, Davarius Smith, appeals as of right from the Lauderdale County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he was entitled to post-conviction relief based on the following alleged violations of his constitutional rights: (1) that the State withheld exculpatory evidence (2) that, alternatively, he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel regarding this undisclosed evidence (3) that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress a witness' prior identification of the Petitioner and (4) that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel due to appellate counsel's failure to challenge an allegedly impermissible comment by the prosecutor during closing arguments and to properly challenge a special jury instruction provided by the trial court. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “an employer . . . must proffer admissible evidence showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, and reasonably specific explanation for its actions”
- stating that the McDonnell Douglas “method of proof [applies] when [employees] have only circumstantial evidence of improper intent”
- noting that the “Brady shortcut” does not “relieve the employer of its burden to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action” (cleaned up)
- noting that the Brady shortcut applies “only if the parties properly move past the second step”
- noting that Title VII's substantive protections apply to federal-sector cases
- characterizing the statement in Brady as a “suggested preference for merits resolution . . . which the District Court should follow only when feasible”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.