holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Sixth Amendment and withholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Fourteenth Amendment “facially allege[d] violations of constitutional rights” and “clearly satisfied” Slack’s substantive component
How later courts described this case
- holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Sixth Amendment and withholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Fourteenth Amendment “facially allege[d] violations of constitutional rights” and “clearly satisfied” Slack’s substantive component
- finding that the district court must inform the petitioner of a potential time-bar before the petitioner chooses whether to amend his mixed petition, in order to make that choice meaningful
- reviewing cases in which the Nevada Supreme Court exercised discretion to ignore the bar “in a capital case,” “where a life is at stake,” and when a case “involves the ultimate punishment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
- noting that we have authority to expand a certificate of appealability “to include additional issues when the district court has granted a [certificate] as to some but not all issues”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FISHER, Circuit Judge,
Concurring.
Because neither party raised the application of Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct. 3047 , 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990), to “appellate factfinding” when the penalty-phase factfinder was a jury, and resolution of that issue is not necessary for our conclusion, I concur in the opinion of Judge Fletcher except section 11(C)(1).