Legal Opinion
Munoz v. Keane
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 4, 1991No. 91-CIV-0954 (LJF), 91-CIV-3195 (LJF)PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND OPINION
FREEH, District Judge.
In these related cases, Linares v. Senkowski (91-CIV-3195) and Munoz v. Keane (91-CIV-0954), petitioners Zoilo Linares (“Linares”) and David Munoz (“Munoz”) seek writs of habeas corpus, primarily on the grounds that their prosecution by an individual not admitted to the bar of New York or any other state violated the due process clause of the federal constitution. 1 Linares and Munoz were codefendants, tried by the same prosecutor, in a single trial. For the reasons stated below, the petitions are denied.
FACTS
On November 9, 1985, Linares and Munoz were…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Andre Stanley Deputy v. Stanley Taylor, Warden, Sussex Correctional InstitutionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Edwards v. Superintendent, Southport C.F.District Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- Mejia v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
- Green v. ArtuzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- State v. GrahamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.