Valdes v. Capital Loan Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “testimony of a single eyewitness suffices for conviction even if 20 bishops testify that the eyewitness is a liar”
• holding that the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception did not apply where six eyewitnesses identified the defendant, even though six alibi witnesses had failed to testify at trial
• holding that a draw between the number of eyewitnesses for and against defendant—six new exculpatory witnesses versus the state’s six inculpatory trial witnesses—“cannot establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty”
• holding that a draw between the number of eyewitnesses for and against defendant—six new exculpatory witnesses versus the state’s six inculpatory trial witnesses—“cannot establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty”
• holding that a draw between the number of eyewitnesses for and against defendant—six new exculpatory witnesses ver- sus the state’s six inculpatory trial witnesses—“cannot estab- lish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the ap- plicant guilty”
• holding that a draw between the number of eyewitnesses for and against defendant—six new exculpatory witnesses ver- sus the state’s six inculpatory trial witnesses—“cannot estab- lish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the ap- plicant guilty”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).