Legal Opinion
Clarence Ray Allen v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of the California State Prison at San Quentin
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 24, 2005No. 01-99011PublishedCited by 172 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The Opinion filed on May 6, 2004 and appearing at 366 F.3d 823 (9th Cir.2004), is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 5831 [366 F.3d at 854] insert the following language at the end of the first paragraph:
We do not hold that humanizing, non-exculpatory evidence can never be enough to establish prejudice. Rather, we simply hold that the quality and quantity of the particular evidence offered by Allen, in light of the heinous nature of his crimes, does not establish prejudice.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition…
2Cases cited79 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
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by172 opinions
- Clarence Ray Allen v. Steven W. Ornoski, Warden, of the California State Prison at San Quentin Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Jeffrey D. Hill v. Betty Mitchell, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Earp v. OrnoskiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. MitchellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Runningeagle v. SchriroCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
167 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.