Ignacio Alberto ORTIZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART, Respondent-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that record must show that evidence is exculpatory for defendant to establish Brady violation
• holding that a Lackey claim, not raised in a first § 2254 petition, does not fall within either exception to AEDPA’s bar against subsequent claims
• holding that to earn the right to an evidentiary hearing, a 10 petitioner is “required to allege specific facts which, if true, would entitle [her] to 11 relief.” (quoting United States v. Mullen, 98 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 1996)
• stating that the district court 10 must consider whether the claim could be pursued by any presently available state remedy
• stating that the district court 26 must consider whether the claim could be pursued by any presently available state remedy
• explaining that a sentencer may not be precluded from considering relevant 20 mitigation, but “is free to assess how much weight to assign to such evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).