Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Matthews v. Parker

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided June 27, 2011No. 09-5464Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSiler, Circuit Judge

I would affirm the district court’s judgment denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, I dissent on Parts IV and V of the majority opinion. In all other respects, I concur in the conclusions of the majority opinion, except where it authorizes the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. This concurrenee/dissent will only discuss those portions of the majority opinion with which I disagree, to wit, the sufficiency of the evidence and prosecutorial misconduct.

I. Shifting the Burden of Proof on EED

David Eugene Matthews asserts that he was denied due process of law under the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Bradshaw v. RicheySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  4. Eugene Williams Gall, Jr. v. Phil Parker, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
  5. Gall v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 1980

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API