MISENHEIMER, MELISSA v. MISENHEIMER, QUENTIN

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that because the new-evidence statements were hearsay, they were “presumptively less reliable than direct testimony.” (cleaned up)
• noting that witness’s “recantation amounts to another change in his story” which “alone could make it more difficult for a reasonable juror to find it reliable”
• finding that the petitioner did not receive the benefit of statutory tolling where the Ohio courts determined that petitioner failed to make the required showing under Rule 33(B)
• recognizing “corroborating value” of witness’s knowledge of “non-public information”
• finding petitioner’s lack of knowledge as to whether Rule 33(B) motion was “properly filed” curable by the filing of a “protective petition,” and petitioner’s failure to do so “thus left everything riding on the adequacy of his state-court motion”
• a change in story could “make it more difficult for reasonable juror to find it reliable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).