Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Header

Articles by Douglas Ankney

Idaho Supreme Court: Confession Obtained in Violation of Miranda Inadmissible in State’s Case in Chief but May Be Used for Impeachment Purposes Where Defendant’s Will Was Not ‘Overborne’ During Interrogation

by Douglas Ankney

The Supreme Court of Idaho held that a confession obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is inadmissible in the State’s case in chief against Daniel Lee Moore, but the confession may be used to impeach any claim of innocence by Moore ...

Eleventh Circuit Announces Defendant Must Satisfy All Three Subsections of § 3553(f)(1) to Be Ineligible for Safety Valve

by Douglas Ankney

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a defendant must satisfy all three subsections of the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) in order to be ineligible for “safety valve” sentencing relief.

Julian Garcon pleaded guilty to one count ...

New York Court of Appeals Announces When an Alternate Juror Is ‘Discharged’ and no Longer ‘Available for Service’

by Douglas Ankney
The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that under state law an alternate juror discharged from service cannot subsequently be seated to deliberate the case.

Hasahn D. Murray and two codefendants were tried on assault and robbery charges. After counsel for both parties had given their ...

Tennessee Supreme Court Announces State Statute Automatically Sentencing Juvenile Offenders Convicted of First-Degree Murder to Life in Prison Is Unconstitutional

by Douglas Ankney

In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of Tennessee followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance for proportionality analysis when sentencing juvenile offenders convicted of first-degree murder; held that Tennessee’s sentencing regimen imposing automatic life sentences on juveniles is unconstitutional; and remedied the violation by applying ...

Ohio Supreme Court: IAC for Counsel to Mention ‘Neonaticide’ at Sentencing but Fail to Explain and Use It as Mitigating Evidence

by Douglas Ankney

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that Emile Weaver’s trial counsel was ineffective at her sentencing when he made mention of the term “neonaticide” without explaining its meaning and how neonaticide was applicable to Weaver’s case. The Court also found, in an unusually forceful manner, that the ...

California Court of Appeal: Trial Court Erred by Concluding Senate Bill 1393 Does Not Apply to Cases Already Final on Appeal

by Douglas Ankney

The Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, held that the trial court erred by denying recall of a prisoner’s sentence on the erroneous premise that Senate Bill 1393 (“SB 1393”) does not apply to cases already final on appeal, and the Court further held that ...

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Meaning of ‘Outcome Determinative’ in Context of Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing

by Douglas Ankney

The Supreme Court of Ohio clarified the meaning of “outcome determinative” in the context of a motion filed pursuant to R.C. 2953.73, seeking postconviction DNA testing.

Guy Billy Lee Scott was convicted by jury in 1992 for the assault, rape, and murder of Lesa Buckley and sentenced ...

Seventh Circuit: District Court’s Failure to Address Nonfrivolous Argument Raised in First Step Act Motion Constitutes Procedural Error in Violation of Concepcion

by Douglas Ankney

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that when deciding a motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act (“FSA”), a District Court must demonstrate it considered every nonfrivolous argument raised by the defendant.

In 2005, Jamell Newbern pleaded ...

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals: Adding Felony Counts by Amending Indictment Constitutes Addition of More Offenses

by Douglas Ankney

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas ruled that adding felony counts to an indictment via an amended indictment constitutes the adding of additional offenses to the indictment thereby allowing the State to obtain more convictions than authorized by the original indictment, which is prohibited by Tex. ...

California Court of Appeal Holds Phrase ‘From Date of Parole’ Refers to the Start Date of Parole and the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act Does Not Preempt the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act

by Douglas Ankney

In consolidated appeals, the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, held that the phrase “from the date of parole” refers to the start date of parole and that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) does not preempt the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ...

 

 

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side
Advertise Here 3rd Ad
Prison Phone Justice Campaign