Michael Jon Bailey v. Diane Rae, Oregon State Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision, Chairperson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, where procedural default is not at issue, identifying the last explained decision is relevant only for purposes of applying AEDPA
• determining that state court’s application of “more probable than not” rather than “reasonable probability” standard in Brady analysis was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent
• granting new trial where government failed to disclose reports casting doubt on star witness’s testimony, and rejecting argument that certain passages “somehow negate[d] the documents’ exculpatory nature”
• hold- ing that the state court’s use of a “probably change the result” standard for materiality was “contrary to” clearly established federal law
• state court’s application of a standard “is ‘contrary to’ clear Supreme Court precedent[] [and] [t]he state court’s denial of the Brady claim was also ob‐ jectively ‘unreasonable’[.]”
• “Independent corroboration of the defense’s theory of the case by a neutral and disinterested witness is not cumulative of testimony by interested witnesses.” (quoting Boss v. Pierce, 263 F.3d 734, 735 (7th Cir. 2001)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).