Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Richard Carpenter, Stephen Borders, (81-5179), Jerome C. Blair, (81-5516) v. Charles M. Leibson, (81-5179 & 81-5516)

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided July 23, 1982No. 81-5179, 81-5516Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKennedy, Circuit Judge

While I agree with the majority that the only issue on appeal is whether the petitioners have adequately preserved the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to permit habeas corpus review, and while I agree with the result as to two of the three petitioners (Carpenter and Borders), I cannot agree with the way the majority reaches that result. The majority opinion would reject the procedural requirements of Kimbrough v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 525 (Ky.1977) because in the present case “the state had no legitimate interest in requiring a renewal of the motion for a directed verdict.”…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Engle v. IsaacSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Sumner v. MataSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Joseph Riley v. Frank H. Gray, Supt.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982

12 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