Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Sixth Circuit -- Arthur Bell v. Carol Howes


Attorney not mentioning potentially exculpatory evidence at trial is not in itself proof that the information wasn't disclosed.  Habeas reversed, as the events are not therefore an unreasonable application of Brady.

Existence of undisclosed principal insufficient to toll AEDPA under actual innocence claim.

Arthur Bell v. Carol Howes
Compiled by D.E. Frydrychowski, who is, not incidentally, not giving you legal advice.

Category tags above are sporadically maintained Do not rely. Do not rely. Do not rely.

Author's SSRN page here.