No. 23A63
Johnny Johnson v. David Vandergriff, Warden
Tags: brady-violation due-process-clause habeas-corpus impeachment-evidence prosecutorial-misconduct suppression-of-evidence
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a state court's denial of a Brady claim alleging prosecutorial suppression of material impeachment evidence, without explanation or argument, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and warrants federal habeas review
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
tion presented the claim that the local prosecutor’s office and the Attorney General withheld material impeachment evidence at trial, direct appeal, post-conviction, and habeas proceedings, in violation of this Court’s decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Missouri Supreme Court denied the petition without argument in an unexplained order.
Docket Entries
2023-08-01
Application (23A63) referred to the Court.
2023-08-01
Application (23A63) for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
2023-07-25
Opposition to stay filed.
2023-07-24
Application (23A63) for stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
Attorneys
David Vandergriff
Gregory Michael Goodwin — Missouri Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Johnny Johnson
Laurence Edward Komp — Petitioner