Brown v. Eplett
| Docket Number | 21-1515 |
| Decision Date | 07 September 2022 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 cases
-
Meyers v. Gomez
... ... M. Mitchell, Attorney, Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant. Garson Fischer, Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for ... Brown v. Eplett , 48 F.4th 543, 552 (7th Cir. 2022), (collecting cases). There is no dispute that Meyers invoked Wilson's recantation in state court to argue that ... ...
-
Meyers v. Gomez
... ... Id. (quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 691, ... 104 S.Ct. 2052[, 2066] ... Brown v. Sternes , 304 F.3d 677, 691 (7th Cir. 2002) ... When an attorney has looked into a potential defense witness ... and yet has made a ... courts as to the federal nature of the claim when he does so ... Brown v. Eplett , No. 21-1515, 48 F.4th 543, 552 (7th ... Cir. 2022), (collecting cases). There is no dispute that ... Meyers invoked Wilson's ... ...
-
United States v. Bahena
... ... Without more, this is too speculative to evince prejudice for plain-error purposes. Cf. Brown v. Eplett, 48 F.4th 543, 560 (7th Cir. 2022) (discussing the ambiguity behind a split verdict).5. A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge accounts ... ...
-
Hodges v. Cromwell
...to hold an evidentiary hearing, “[e]rrors of state law in and of themselves are not redressable in habeas corpus . . . .” Brown v. Eplett, 48 F.4th 543, 552 (7th Cir. 2022). That means that even if the state court did not correctly or reasonably apply Wisconsin law in deciding not to hold a......
Request a trial to view additional results