LaFevers v. Gibson

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that there is a circuit split on this question and declining to decide whether such challenges are cognizable under § 2244(b)(2)(B) because the claim would fail on the merits
• recounting evidence supporting assertion that Gilchrist lied during LaFevers’ trial as to whether electrophoresis testing had been conducted on Exhibit 83, the pants attributed to LaFevers, prior to trial
• “assuming]” the existence of a Brady violation and concluding that the petitioner could not “demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that but for the assumed Brady ... violation no reasonable factfin-der would have found him guilty of this murder”
• noting “there is a split among the . . . circuits that have addressed the question,” but not resolving the “difficult question because even assuming § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) does encompass challenges to a death sentence,” the petitioner’s claim would fail
• “assuming]” the existence of a Brady violation and concluding that the petitioner could not “demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that but for the assumed Brady ... violation no reasonable factfin-der would have found him guilty of this murder”
• “assum[ing]” the existence of a Brady violation and concluding that the petitioner could not “demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that but for the assumed Brady . . . violation no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of this murder”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).