Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Kyles Vs. Whitley

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 19, 1995

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

73 entries 10 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Burger Vs. Kemp US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1987
  2. Nix Vs. Whiteside US Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1986
  3. Brecht Vs. Abrahamson US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1993
  4. Estes Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1965
  5. United States Vs. Leon US Supreme Court · Jul 05, 1984
  6. Neil Vs. Biggers US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1972
  7. United States Vs. Agurs US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1976
  8. Mooney Vs. Holohan US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1935
  9. United States Vs. Bagley US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1985
  10. Manson Vs. Brathwaite US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1977
  11. U.S. 419 (1995) October Term, 1994 Syllabus Kyles V. Whitley
    Search
  12. sought relief on federal habeas, claiming, among other things, that his conviction was obtained in violation of Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  13. Under United States v. Bagley
    Search
  14. suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant's acquittal. 473 U. S., at 682, 685. United States v. Agurs
    Search
  15. Syllabus ality under Bagley imposes a higher burden than the harmless-error standard of Brecht v. Abrahamson
    Search
  16. and sentenced to death. On habeas review, we follow the established rule that the state's obligation under Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  17. unable to reach a verdict, Kyles's subsequent conviction and sentence of death were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Kyles
    Search
  18. denied relief, and the State Supreme Court denied Kyles's application for discretionary review. State ex rel. Kyles v. Butler
    Search
  19. strictures against misrepresentation and is of course most prominently associated with this Court's decision in Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  20. U. S. 83 (1963). See id., at 86 (relying on Mooney v. Holohan
    Search
  21. U. S. 103 , 112 (1935), and Pyle v. Kansas
    Search
  22. see Moore v. Illinois
    Search
  23. are currently stayed pending our review of Kyles's federal habeas petition. 433 (1972). In United States v. Agurs
    Search
  24. Id., at 108. In the third prominent case on the way to current Brady law, United States v. Bagley
    Search
  25. inculpate the defendant). Id., at 682 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (adopting formulation announced in Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  26. U. S. 619, 623 (1993), quoting Kotteakos v. United
    Search
  27. the portion of his opinion written for the Court, the Constitution is not violated every time the 9 See also Hill v. Lockhart
    Search
  28. Giglio v. United
    Search
  29. Berger v. United
    Search
  30. s private deliberations, as the chosen forum for ascertaining the truth about criminal accusations. See Rose v. Clark
    Search
  31. quoting Alderman v. United
    Search
  32. Since the evolution over time of a given eyewitness's description can be fatal to its reliability, cf. Manson v. Brathwaite
    Search
  33. if not countenancing) serious possibilities that incriminating evidence had been planted. See, e. g., Bowen v. Maynard
    Search
  34. Lindsey v. King
    Search
  35. T. v. and
    Search
  36. of the capital cases that confront us. Compare Coleman v. Balkcom
    Search
  37. post, at 460, especially important. Cf. Harris v. Alabama
    Search
  38. Brown v. Allen
    Search
  39. the facts, certiorari should generally (i. e., except in cases of the plainest error) be denied. United States v. Johnston
    Search
  40. when the fact-bound assessment of the federal court of appeals has differed from that of the district court, Sumner v. Mata
    Search
  41. of appeals are in agreement as to what conclusion the record requires. See, e. g., Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde
    Search
  42. to search for constitutional error with painstaking care is never more exacting than it is in a capital case,' Burger v. Kemp
    Search
  43. general observations about the Court's methodology are appropriate. It is fundamental to the discovery rule of Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  44. probable that a jury would have entertained a reasonable doubt regarding petitioner's guilt. See United States v. Bagley
    Search
  45. Ante, at 434 (quoting United States v. Bagley
    Search
  46. Ante, at 445 (citing Agurs v. United
    Search
  47. Agurs, 427 U. S., at 112-113, n. 21 (quoting Comment, Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  48. id., at 340 (petitioner) (13 people). 472 tried and convicted for killing Beanie. See State v. Burnes
    Search
  49. Syllabus Kyles V. Whitley
    Search
  50. of Brady v. Maryland
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial