Legal Opinion

Bell v. Howes

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided December 28, 2010No. Case 2:06-CV-15086PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ARTHUR J. TARNOW, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Arthur Bell’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Bell challenges his convictions for first-degree felony murder and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. The Court finds that the state court’s decision regarding Bell’s Brady claim was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. The Court further finds that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present alibi witnesses…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lopez v. MillerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2013
  2. Arthur Bell v. Carol HowesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  3. Bell v. HowesDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2019
  4. Bell v. HowesDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020
  5. Bell v. HowesDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API