Graham S Henry v. Charles Ryan

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “historical alcoholism might [be] considered aggravating as well as mitigating, depending on the perspective of the sentencing court”
• recognizing that “historical alcoholism might [be] considered aggravating as well as mitigating, depending on the perspective of the sentencing court”
• finding that petitioner’s conclusory 3 assertion that any testimony inconsistent with the truth must be not only inaccurate but also 4 perjured, does not constitute evidence sufficient to make out a Napue claim
• applying Rule 32.1(e) 11 criteria to determine if an avenue for relief existed for purposes of exhausting Henry’s new 12 evidence supporting his Brady claim
• affirming the denial of an evidentiary hearing when petitioner failed to “point to any additional evidence that could be properly pursued at an evidentiary hearing to” support his claim
• no cause established when petitioner suspected and had evidentiary support for his Brady claim prior to federal habeas proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).