Douglas v. Workman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a prisoner’s Brady claim is not subject to § 2244(b) when the prosecutor purposefully withholds exculpatory evidence.
• holding that a prisoner's Brady claim is not subject to § 2244(b) when the prosecutor purposefully withholds exculpatory evidence.
• noting that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is designed to protect against judicial abuse by the petitioner, not the State’s perpetration of a fraud on the court
• reiterating that Brady’s materiality element “is not a requirement that the evidence be sufficiently strong to ensure an acquittal had it been presented at trial” (emphasis omitted)
• noting that the court’s review of habeas claims was “governed by AEDPA’s standards to the extent that the claims were adjudicated on the merits by an Oklahoma state court”
• holding “when a state court applies plain error review in disposing of a federal claim, the decision is on the merits to the extent that the state court finds the claim lacks merit under federal law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).