# Bell v. Bell

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 4, 2008 · 512 F.3d 223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631917

## Case

- **Full name:** Stephen M. BELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricky BELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 4, 2008
- **Citations:** 512 F.3d 223; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 155; 2008 WL 50315
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Daughtrey
- **Judges:** Boggs, Martin, Batchelder, Daughtrey, Moore, Cole, Clay, Gilman, Gibbons, Rogers, Sutton, Cook, McKeague, Griffin
- **Cited by:** 108 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631917

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a petitioner will prevail only if he “can show that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict” (quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555) (internal quotation mar…
- stating that the court had “no reason to believe that an undisclosed agreement was the true reason” that the prosecutor wrote a letter to the parole board on behalf of the witness where the prosecutor attested that no agreement existed and the petitioner was “[w]ithout evidenc…
- holding that evidence of a witness’s expectation of favorable treatment was not material where it merely would have bolstered an attack on credibility already made at closing
- stating that “not disclosing something” that police “d[o] not have[] cannot be considered a Brady violation” (quotations omitted)

## Opinion text

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I agree with Judge Moore that rehearing en banc was improvidently granted in this case and, for that reason, I would vacate the order granting rehearing and reinstate the panel opinion. The disposi-tive question in this section 2241 matter boils down to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence presented on the petitioner’s behalf in district court and, therefore, fails to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a).
That said, however, because the panel opinion has been vacated by order of a majority of the court, it becomes necessary to redetermine the principal issue raised on appeal. On that score, I would vote in conformity with the majority’s analysis of the facts and hold that the evidence fails to establish the existence of a tacit agreement between the state prosecutor, Miller, and the state’s witness, Davenport.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631917. Public record. Not legal advice.