Legal Opinion
Simpson v. Matesanz
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided November 12, 1998No. Civil Action 97-11017-NGPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
GERTNER, District Judge.
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum and Order, the Petitioner’s Motion for Habeas Corpus [docket # 1] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a ease in which every single attempt to define reasonable doubt in the jury instructions was, by current constitutional standards, problematic, and in which the instructions as a whole were very likely to have conveyed to the jury an unconstitutional conception of the government’s burden of proof. If we are to mean it when we say that such errors are fundamentally at odds with a fair trial,…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Estelle v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Simpson v. MatesanzCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- Mains v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
- Commonwealth v. TherrienMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- Gaines v. MatesanzDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2003
- Lattimore v. DuboisDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.