noting that the defendant’s burden to prove the materiality of suppressed impeachment evidence was lightened in view of the fact that a previous jury had been unable to find the defendant guilty
How later courts described this case
- noting that the defendant’s burden to prove the materiality of suppressed impeachment evidence was lightened in view of the fact that a previous jury had been unable to find the defendant guilty
- “The petitioner will not be entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing when his claims are merely 'conclusory allegations unsupported by specifies’_” (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977))
- in finding a Brady violation, the- court pointed out that a deadlocked jury had caused mistrial at defendant’s prior trial
- “The petitioner will not be entitled to an evidentiary hearing when his claims are ... ‘contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Gerald Stano has confessed to murdering a large number of young ladies. This case involves the murder of Cathy Scharf. Unlike Stano’s other cases, he went to trial in this one. He was convicted and sentenced to death. That judgment was affirmed by the state appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. In this habeas action, Stano raised a large number of issues. The district court entered a lengthy detailed order denying relief. A panel of this court reviewed the multiple issues presented on appeal and affirmed the denial. Judge Anderson filed a partial dissent. The case was taken for en banc review.
A majority of the en banc court feels there should be an evidentiary hearing on the Brady and Henry claims. Nothing presented throughout the lengthy consideration of this matter has convinced me that such is warranted by either the alleged facts or existing precedent. Most respectfully, I dissent for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion found at 883 F.2d 900 .