Snow v. Sirmons

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that AEPDA applies to § 2254 habeas petitions filed after its effective date
• ruling that the state court’s rejection of a petitioner’s Brady claim was not an unreasonable application of federal law where the withheld evidence could not be squared with “firmly grounded” testimony provided at trial
• rejecting ineffective-assistance claim where habeas petitioner failed to indicate “why counsel’s failure to object to the evidence was deficient . . . ‘
• rejecting an ineffective assistance claim where habeas petitioner failed to indicate “why counsel’s failure to object to the evidence was deficient and how such alleged failure prejudiced him”
• finding the conclusory assertion that the state court’s adjudication was unreasonable was not a “sufficient argument for why counsel’s failure to object to the evidence was deficient and how such alleged failure prejudiced him”
• applicant who presents “at most, a conclusory argument that the lost videotapes might have contained exculpatory material” is not entitled to habeas corpus relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).