No. 18-380
Darrel Vannoy, Warden v. John David Floyd
Tags: actual-innocence appellate-procedure brady-violation due-deference due-process federal-statute habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel mcquiggin-v-perkins schlup-v-delo standard-of-review supreme-court-review
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Privacy
HabeasCorpus Privacy
Latest Conference:
2018-11-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the court of appeals failed to apply due deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and (e)(1) to the ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the court of appeals failed to apply due deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and (e)(1) to the ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court. 2. Whether the court of appeals misapplied the actualinnocence standard of McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) and Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
Docket Entries
2018-11-19
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
2018-11-19
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.
2018-10-24
Reply of petitioner Darrel Vannoy, Warden filed.
2018-10-11
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent John David Floyd.
2018-10-11
Brief of respondent John David Floyd in opposition filed.
2018-09-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 24, 2018)
Attorneys
Darrel Vannoy, Warden
John David Floyd
Richard Martin Andrew Davis — Innocence Project New Orleans, Respondent
Richard Martin Andrew Davis — Innocence Project New Orleans, Respondent