Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kenneth Wayne O'Guinn v. Michael Dutton, Cross-Appellee

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided July 3, 1996No. 93-5578, 93-5620Published

1DissentBatchelder, Circuit Judge

I must respectfully dissent. For the reasons that follow, I cannot agree that the principles of comity and federalism require that the State of Tennessee be given the opportunity to adjudicate O’Guinn’s Brady claim. Further, in my view, if the majority of the court is of the opinion that this habeas petition should be dismissed because it contains an unexhausted claim, the appropriate course for the court to take is simply to dismiss the petition, without attempting to advise the state courts or the federal district court what their resolution of the multitude of issues in this case ought to…

2Cases cited64 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

59 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