Citation network
Mccleskey Vs. Zant
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 16, 1991
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 467 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
U.S. 467 (1991) McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
by the State to induce him to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel in violation of Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
defined such abuse in an oblique way, through dicta and denials of certiorari petitions or stay applications, see Witt v. WainwrightSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of the subject, has not always followed an unwavering line in its conclusions as to the writ's availability, Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
in order to establish that its inclusion in a subsequent petition constitutes abuse of the writ, see, e.g., Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
the claim could have been raised in the first petition, but was omitted through inexcusable neglect, see, e.g., Delo v. StokesSearch
-
standard used to determine whether to excuse a habeas petitioner's state procedural defaults, see, e.g., Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
the question whether he would be prejudiced by his inability to raise the claim need not be considered. See Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
would not have prevented McCleskey from raising a Massiah claim in the first federal petition. Amadeo v. ZantSearch
-
of habeas corpus. Petitioner Warren McCleskey, in a second federal habeas petition, presented a claim under Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
in violation of Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 83 (1963). McClesky v. StateSearch
-
and Page 499 U. S. 472 affirmed his conviction and sentence. Ibid. We denied certiorari. McClesky v. GeorgiaSearch
-
concerned Evans' testimony. First, McCleskey contended that the State violated his due process rights under Giglio v. UnitedSearch
-
alleged that admission of Evans' testimony violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as construed in Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
application for a certificate of probable cause, and we denied his second petition for a writ of certiorari. McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
to Evans was a promise of favorable treatment, and that failure to disclose the promise violated Giglio. McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
granted relief. Id. at 384. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's grant of the writ. McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
inculpatory admissions in violation of McCleskey's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Massiah v. UnitedSearch
-
Court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss McCleskey's Massiah claim as an abuse of the writ. McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
a proper submission, the petitioner must show that he has not abused the writ in seeking habeas relief. See Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
abuse of the writ in an oblique way, through dicta and denials of certiorari petitions or stay applications. See Witt v. WainwrightSearch
-
expansion of the writ has come through judicial decisionmaking. As then-JUSTICE REHNQUIST explained in Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
for confinement under a state conviction obtained without adequate procedural protections for the defendant. Frank v. MangumSearch
-
U. S. 86 (1923). Confronting this line of precedents extending the reach of the writ, in Waley v. JohnstonSearch
-
supra, 433 U.S. at 433 U. S. 79 (quoting Waley v. JohnstonSearch
-
Amendment violations that a petitioner has been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court, Stone v. PowellSearch
-
today appears to extend to all dispositive constitutional claims presented in a proper procedural manner. See Brown v. AllenSearch
-
the common law rule, holding a denial of habeas relief Page 499 U. S. 480 res judicata. See, e.g., Perry v. McLendonSearch
-
McMahon v. MeadSearch
-
resolved the confusion over the continuing validity of the common law rule, at least for federal courts, in Salinger v. LoiselSearch
-
U. S. 224 (1924), and Wong Doo v. UnitedSearch
-
Wong Doo v. UnitedSearch
-
vital relevance to the exercise of the court's discretion in determining whether to consider the petition. Price v. JohnstonSearch
-
ed.) (Reviser's Note), and we confirmed in Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
Sanders v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 373 U. S. 18 . The Court also cited Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
U. S. 391 , 372 U. S. 438 -440 (1963), and Townsend v. SainSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial