Legal Opinion
Ex Parte Richardson
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided March 13, 2002No. 74,221PublishedCited by 216 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · CochranCochran, J.
joined by KELLER, P.J., MEYERS, PRICE, WOMACK, JOHNSON, HERVEY and HOLCOMB, JJ.
In his application for a writ of habeas corpus, applicant alleges twenty points of constitutional error in his conviction for capital murder under Texas Penal Code, Sections 19.02(a)(1) and 19.03(a)(6)(A). This Court ordered points 13, 14, 15, and 17 filed and set for submission. 1 Because we agree that the credibility of the State’s only eyewitness, Anita Hanson, was a crucial issue in applicant’s trial, we conclude that the State had an affirmative constitutional duty under Brady v. Maryland 2 to disclose…
3Cases cited9 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Kyles v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Ex Parte MorrowCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
- Ex Parte AdamsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by216 opinions
- Hampton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
- Keeter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
- Torres, Ex Parte ManuelCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2016
- Ex Parte Aftab Ali, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2012
- Miles, Ex Parte Richard Ray Jr.Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2012
211 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.