Kevin Stanford v. Phil Parker, Warden, Kentucky State Penitentiary

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by “denying a fishing expedition masquerading as discovery”
• holding that because there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, any Bruton violation constituted harmless error
• holding that a state court’s alleged abuse of discretion in denying a severance motion is not, by itself, a violation of the Constitution
• holding that “[h]abeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery” and that the district court did not err “by denying a fishing expedition masquerading as discovery”
• stating that evidentiary hearing is not required “if the record clearly indicates that the petitioner’s claims are either barred from review or without merit”
• stating that evidentiary hearing is not required “if the record clearly indicates that the petitioner’s claims are either barred from review or without merit”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).