No. 21-6238
Donald Broadnax v. John Q. Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
IFP
Tags: AEDPA aedpa-deference due-process federal-habeas-corpus hearsay hearsay-evidence ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel postconviction-relief state-evidentiary-rules state-postconviction-proceedings
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-03-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does AEDPA deference apply to state postconviction evidentiary rules?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Alabama prohibits a state postconviction petitioner from introducing hearsay to prove a penalty phase ineffective assistance of counsel claim. By contrast, the same hearsay is admissible in the penalty phase of a capital trial. The questions presented are: 1. Does AEDPA deference apply where a federal court considers whether state postconviction evidentiary rules violate due process? 2. Can a state bar hearsay offered to prove an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where that same hearsay was admissible at trial? i
Docket Entries
2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-23
Reply of petitioner Donald Broadnax filed. (Distributed)
2022-02-08
Brief of respondent John Q. Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections in opposition filed.
2022-01-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 9, 2022.
2022-01-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 10, 2021 to February 9, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 10, 2021)
Attorneys
Donald Broadnax
John Anthony Palombi — Federal Defenders, Petitioner
John Q. Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections