Joseph Stewart v. Hugh Wolfenbarger

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, where the prosecution’s evidence was thin, failure to present alibi witnesses “undeniabl[y]” prejudiced the defendant
• noting that a court has “more leeway” to consider claims of closely related successive representation when considering § 2255 motions rather than § 2254 petitions
• finding that the state courts’ conclusion that a petitioner had failed to present proper evidence of what a witness’s testimony would have been if he testified “was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law”
• finding that the state courts’ conclusion that a petitioner had failed to present proper evidence of what a witness’s testimony would have been if he testified “was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law”
• finding that the state court’s conclusion that a petitioner had failed 24 to present proper evidence of what a witness’s testimony would have been if he testified “was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law”
• finding prejudice as a result of the exclusion from trial of exculpatory evidence that \went to the very heart of Petitioner's defense.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).