Jardine v. DITTMANN

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the undisclosed material was inadmissible under state law and could not be used to impeach, but concluding that no Brady violation occurred only after evaluating other avenues through with the material could be used
• “This court must fill any gaps in the state court’s discussion by asking what theories ‘could have sup- ported’ the state court’s conclusion.”
• “This court must fill any gaps in the state court’s discussion by asking what theories ‘could have supported’ the state court’s conclusion.”
• “Logically, inadmissible evidence is immaterial under [the Brady] rule”
• “This court must fill any gaps in the state court’s discussion by asking what theories 1 The dissent’s reliance on Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3 (2002) (per curiam), post, at 38, conflates the distinct “contrary to” and “unreasonable application” clauses of § 2254(d)(1
• “Logically, inadmissible evidence is immaterial under this rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).