Estate of Luella Ehrlinger v. Phillip a Dean Md

How courts have described this case

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

• noting courts, including the Supreme Court, “have long considered arguments that the introduction of faulty evidence violates a petitioner’s due process right to a fundamentally fair trial—even if that evidence does not specifically qualify as ‘false testimony.’”
• “such a petition for relief is not a ‘freestanding innocence claim,’ but a due process claim”
• a petitioner claiming actual innocence must 13 “affirmatively prove that he is probably innocent”
• recog- nizing “that habeas petitioners can allege a constitutional violation from the introduction of flawed expert testimony at trial if they show that the introduction of this evidence ‘undermined the fundamental fairness of the entire trial’ ”
• “[S]ection 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) also requires petitioners to state a predicate ‘constitutional error.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).