HUTCHERSON

v.

LOCKHART, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

Citator

Cited By

• Lafferty v. Cook, 949 F.2d 1546 (10th Cir. 1991)
  …resumption of correctness. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (emphasis added);2 Case v. Mondragon, 887 F. 2d 1388, 1392 (10th Cir.1989) (explicit and implicit fact findings by state trial and appellate courts entitled to presumption of correctness), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1035, 110 S.Ct. 1490, 108 L.Ed.2d 626 (1990); Graham v. Wilson, 828 F. 2d 656, 658 (10th Cir.1987) (federal court must accord presumption of correctness to state court fact findings unless statutory exceptions apply), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1069, 108 S.C…
• Scott v. Roberts, 975 F.2d 1473 (10th Cir. 1992)
  …ance must not only have been an abuse of discretion; it must have been so arbitrary and fundamentally unfair that it violated the appellant’s constitutional right to due process. Case v. Mondragon, 887 F. 2d 1388, 1396 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1035, 110 S.Ct. 1490, 108 L.Ed.2d 626 (1990); Hicks v. Wainwright, 633 F. 2d 1146, 1148 (5th Cir.1981). That is, the error must have been so grave that it rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. Kirkpatrick v. Blackburn, 111 F. 2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1985…
• Manlove v. Tansy, 981 F.2d 473 (10th Cir. 1992)
  …a whole, “the factual determination is not fairly supported by the record.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546-47, 101 S.Ct. 764, 769, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981); Case v. Mondragon, 887 F. 2d 1388, 1392 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1035, 110 S.Ct. 1490, 108 L.Ed.2d 626 (1990). In the state trial court, Mr. Manlove’s only stated ground for seeking admission of Pike’s testimony was to impeach the credibility of the prosecutrix. Ms. Pike’s testimony would have been extrinsic evidence…

  ← 1 / 2 →