Henness v. Bagley

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the state courts’ denial of a claim involving substitution of counsel “was a reasonable application of constitutional law”
• finding counsel was not ineffective under Strickland for failing to bring a merit-less motion to suppress
• stating that speculation does not establish a Brady violation
• finding a police informational summary about a detective interview was inadmissible hearsay because it must “lead to the discovery of additional, admissible evidence that could have resulted in a different result at trial'' to constitute a Brady violation
• “[Petitioner] already knew of his own contact with the police at the time of trial, so the prosecution’s failure to provide this information was not a Brady violation.”
• “Since Henness was aware of the essential facts that would enable him to take advantage of the exculpatory evidence, no Brady violation occurred.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).