Buttrum v. Black, 89-8844
| Decision Date | 20 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-8844,89-8844 |
| Parties | Janice BUTTRUM, Petitioner-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Gary BLACK, Warden, Middle Georgia Correctional Institute, Women's Division, Respondent-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Susan V. Boleyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary Beth Westmoreland, William B. Hill, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellant, cross-appellee.
George H. Kendall, New York City, Bruce S. Harvey, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner-appellee, cross-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Harold C. Murphy, District Judge, Presiding.
Before FAY, KRAVITCH and COX, Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves a prisoner's petition for habeas corpus relief. The petitioner presented numerous issues to the United States District Court. In a very detailed and scholarly order, dated September 20, 1989, 721 F.Supp. 1268, the district court denied petitioner relief as to the guilt/innocence phase of trial and granted relief as to the sentencing phase. We AFFIRM the ruling of the district court for the reasons stated in its order.
I agree that the district court properly denied petitioner relief as to the guilt/innocence phase of trial for the reasons stated in its order.
The district court granted relief as to the sentencing phase on several grounds. One of the grounds on which petitioner was held entitled to relief was that the admission of Dr. Adam's testimony at the sentencing phase violated petitioner's constitutional rights under Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). I agree that relief was properly granted on that ground for reasons stated by the district court in its order, and I find it unnecessary to decide whether the district court was correct in concluding that petitioner was entitled to relief as to the sentencing phase on other grounds.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruett v. Thompson
...to conduct further examination relevant to future dangerousness after prosecution put on expert testimony on same issue), aff'd, 908 F.2d 695 (11th Cir.1990). Claim C: Unreliable and Irrelevant Sentencing During the sentencing phase, the Commonwealth introduced over Pruett's objections the ......
-
Gibson v. Turpin, S97R1412.
...794 (11th Cir.1982); Young v. Zant, 677 F.2d 792 (11th Cir.1982); Buttrum v. Black, 721 F.Supp. 1268 (N.D.Ga. 1989), aff'd per curiam, 908 F.2d 695 (1990); Jones v. Kemp, 706 F.Supp. 1534 (N.D.Ga.1989); Smith v. Kemp, 664 F.Supp. 500 (M.D.Ga.1987), aff'd by equally divided court, 887 F.2d 1......
-
Harris v. Vasquez
...not only erroneous; they are contrary to the view of the only other circuit to have decided the same Ake question. See Buttrum v. Black, 908 F.2d 695 (11th Cir.1990), aff'g, 721 F.Supp. 1268, 1312-13 (N.D.Georgia 1989). However, as I noted earlier, these errors may be somewhat more excusabl......
-
State v. Kleypas
...S.W.2d 75, 85-86 (Tenn. 1994). The one case relied upon by Kleypas, Buttrum v. Black, 721 F. Supp. 1268 (N.D. Ga. 1989), aff'd 908 F.2d 695 (11th Cir. 1990), is distinguishable. In Buttrum, the court found improper comments by the prosecutor that the defendant had "signed her own death warr......