No. 20-6053

Dieter Riechmann v. Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-10-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: 28-usc-2254 appellate-standard circuit-split evidence evidence-review federal-courts federal-review habeas-corpus standard-of-review state-court-determination statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Securities
Latest Conference: 2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is a state court's conclusion that evidence not presented at trial was cumulative of other evidence before the jury a 'determination of the facts' that is reviewed for reasonableness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), or an 'application of clearly established Federal law' reviewed for reasonableness under § 2254(d)(1), an issue on which the circuit courts of appeal disagree?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Is a state court’s conclusion that evidence not presented at trial was cumulative of other evidence before the jury a “determination of the facts” that is reviewed for reasonableness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), or an “application of clearly established Federal law” reviewed for reasonableness under § 2254(d)(1), an issue on which the circuit courts of appeal disagree? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no

Docket Entries

2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-10-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 16, 2020)

Attorneys

Dieter Riechmann
Janice L. BergmannFederal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
Janice L. BergmannFederal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner