“A petitioner does not have an unlimited and unqualified right to discovery in a postcon-viction proceeding. In Land, the Supreme Court adopted a standard of good cause— it did not elect to adopt the broader standards for discovery that are contained in the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.”
How later courts described this case
- “A petitioner does not have an unlimited and unqualified right to discovery in a postcon-viction proceeding. In Land, the Supreme Court adopted a standard of good cause— it did not elect to adopt the broader standards for discovery that are contained in the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHAW, Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the result.
I concur in Parts I through VIII of the main opinion and I concur in the result reached in the opinion. I do not, however, agree with the rationale in Part IX. As I understand the main opinion, the trial court is directed to vacate its rulings on the two discovery motions and to reconsider Jackson’s discovery requests in light of the applicable law cited in the opinion and by applying the appropriate “good cause” standard discussed in Ex parte Land, 775 So.2d 847 (Ala.2000), and Ex parte Mack, 894 So.2d 764 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).