Tenth Circuit· 1/29/2001
LaFevers v. Gibson
Citations
- 238 F.3d 1263
- 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 648
- 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1172
- 2001 WL 68718
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).
Judges: Brorby, Porfilio, Murphy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Case v. HatchTenth Circuit· 2013-04-12· cited 130×
- Ex parte FournierCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2015-10-28· cited 94×
- Cannon v. GibsonTenth Circuit· 2001-08-07· cited 90×
- David Keen v. State of TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court· 2012-12-20· cited 81×
- Agofsky v. JonesTenth Circuit· 2014-08-12· cited 63×
- Ochoa v. SirmonsTenth Circuit· 2007-04-09· cited 53×
- Farrar v. RaemischTenth Circuit· 2019-05-21· cited 49×
- Ochoa v. WorkmanTenth Circuit· 2012-01-18· cited 43×
- Thomas Ross v. Mary Berghuis, WardenSixth Circuit· 2005-08-02· cited 43×
- Vreeland v. ZupanTenth Circuit· 2018-10-09· cited 40×
- In Re WebsterFifth Circuit· 2010-04-28· cited 38×
- In re: Warren Lee Hill, Jr.Eleventh Circuit· 2015-01-26· cited 19×
- Bryan v. MullinTenth Circuit· 2004-06-07· cited 2×
- Wiley v. SirmonsTenth Circuit· 2006-11-08· cited 2×
- Bryan v. MullinTenth Circuit· 2004-06-08
- Phillips v. MillerTenth Circuit· 2007-06-06
- Case v. HatchTenth Circuit· 2013-02-26
- David Keen v. State of Tennessee - DissentTennessee Supreme Court· 2012-12-20
- Ross v. BerghuisSixth Circuit· 2005-08-02
- Fournier, CurtisCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2015-10-28
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1972-02-24· cited 7,003×
- Herrera v. CollinsSupreme Court· 1993-01-25· cited 3,060×
- Donald Bennett v. United StatesSeventh Circuit· 1997-03-03· cited 173×
- Sean Richard Sellers v. Ronald Ward, Warden of the Oklahoma State PenitentiaryTenth Circuit· 1998-02-04· cited 166×
- LaFevers v. GibsonTenth Circuit· 1999-06-16· cited 141×
- William Hope v. United StatesSeventh Circuit· 1997-02-20· cited 66×
- Manuel Pina Babbitt v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden, California State Prison at San QuentinNinth Circuit· 1999-05-03· cited 59×
- United States v. Sergio Arturo Villa-Gonzalez,aka Manuel Ozuna-LopezNinth Circuit· 2000-03-16· cited 48×
- Thomas Nevius v. E.K. McDaniel Warden, OrderNinth Circuit· 2000-05-31· cited 31×
- In Re: Leo Alexander JonesEleventh Circuit· 1998-03-22· cited 18×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.