Woods v. Cockrell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a COA movant had waived an issue because it was briefed inadequately
• holding Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ refusal to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting negative answers to the Texas capital sentencing scheme’s “mitigation” special issue, i.e., the Penry issue, did not violate due process principles
• continuing to hold that the TCCA’s refusal to review mitigating evidence is “within the ambit of federal law as interpreted by the Supreme Court”
• explaining a statement of a legal conclusion, without a serious attempt to argue or substantiate the issue, is a waiver or abandonment of the issue
• a statement of a legal conclusion, without a serious attempt to argue or substantiate the issue, is a waiver or abandonment of the issue
• denying issues raised in petition for COA as inadequately briefed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).