More from this issue:

1. Formally Available, Rarely Granted: A State Prisoner’s Guide to Federal Habeas Relief, by Richard Resch
2. Federal Habeas Quick Reference Guide for State Prisoners
3. Tenth Circuit Announces Resentencing After Probation Revocation Must Begin with Chapter 7 Range, Holding Chapter 5 Range Should Be Considered When Deciding Whether to Vary, by David Kim
4. Sixth Circuit Holds Kentucky Deficient-Counsel Belated-Appeal Procedure Tolls Federal Habeas One-Year Limitations Period, by David M. Reutter
5. Hawaii Supreme Court Announces False Evidence Standard Governs Post-Conviction Claims That Scientific Developments Invalidated Expert Testimony, Holding Prosecution Knowledge Not Required Under State Due Process Clause, by David Kim
6. Second Circuit Vacates Above-Guidelines Firearm-Trafficking Sentence Based on Failure to Assist Law Enforcement and Unexplained Reliance on Factors Already Included in Guidelines Range, by Douglas Ankney
7. Alaska Supreme Court Announces “Stop and Clarify” Rule Under Article I, Sections 9 and 11 of Alaska Constitution, Holding Officers Must Cease Questioning and Clarify Ambiguous Post-Waiver Request for Counsel, by David Kim
8. Seventh Circuit Announces Generic Conspiracy Under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 Requires Bilateral Agreement, Holding Indiana Conspiracy Convictions Cannot Qualify as Crimes of Violence, by David M. Reutter
9. California Supreme Court Announces Article I, Section 28(f)(3) Does Not Authorize Denial of Bail Beyond Offenses Specified in Section 12, Holding Bail Must Generally Be Set in Amount Reasonably Attainable for Defendant, by David Kim
10. Ninth Circuit Reverses Convictions, Holding Requirement That Defendant Testify Before Displaying Hand Tattoos Violates Fifth Amendment, by Douglas Ankney
11. Connecticut Supreme Court Holds Trial Counsel Ineffective for Failing to Challenge Misleading CSLI GeoTime Video, by David Kim
12. Michigan Supreme Court Announces Two-Step Test for Mandatory LWOP Imposed for Pre-Aaron Felony Murder, by David Kim
13. Ohio Supreme Court Announces Postconviction DNA-Testing Orders Need Only Identify Statutory Reason to Satisfy R.C. 2953.73(D) “Reasons” Requirement, by Douglas Ankney
14. NEWS IN BRIEF