Drake v. Portuondo

How courts have described this case

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

• describing Walter’s false and highly prejudicial expert testimony as “conjur[ed] up . . . quackery”
• discussing United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S. Ct. 2392 (1976), holding modified by United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985
• “The question of whether the witness’s ‘untruthfulness . . . constituted perjury’ makes no ‘material difference’ where the issue is a conviction ‘on tainted testimony.’”
• “A state court’s findings of fact are ‘presumed to be correct’ unless rebutted ‘by clear and convincing evidence.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)
• “Walter’s deposition on remand confirms that he grossly exaggerated most of his qualifications and outright lied about some of them.”
• providing the general standard for review of habeas corpus petitions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).