HENDERSON

v.

ALABAMA

Citator

Cited By

• Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996)
  …Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and applies when reviewing questions of fact. Compare, e. g., United States v. Puerta, 982 F. 2d 1297, 1300 (CA9 1992) (de novo review); United States v. Ramos, 933 F. 2d 968, 972 (CA11 1991) (same), cert. denied, 503 U. S. 908 (1992); United States v. Patrick, 899 F. 2d 169, 171 (CA2 1990) (same), with United States v. Spears, 965 F. 2d 262, 268-271 (CA7 1992) (clear error). The United States, in accord with petitioners, contends that a de novo standard of review should…
• United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1997)
  …m the evidence that multiple conspiracies, rather than the single charged conspiracy, existed. The answer to the former does not necessarily dictate the answer to the latter. See United States v. Stowell, 947 F. 2d 1251 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908, 112 S.Ct. 1269, 117 L.Ed.2d 497. “The issue of whether the defense produced sufficient evidence to sustain a particular instruction such as a multiple conspiracy instruction, is generally a question of law subject to de novo review.” United States…
• Henderson v. Donal Campbell, 353 F.3d 880 (11th Cir. 2003)
  …v. State, 583 So. 2d 276 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed, Ex parte Henderson, 583 So. 2d 305 (Ala.1991), and the Supreme Court of the United States denied Henderson’s petition for writ of certiorari, Henderson v. Alabama, 503 U.S. 908, 112 S.Ct. 1268, 117 L.Ed.2d 496 (1992). A. State Post-Conviction Proceedings On October 13, 1993, two Maryland attorneys filed a petition in the state courts of Alabama on Henderson’s behalf, seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Alabama Rule…