Legal Opinion
Watson v. Artuz
District Court, S.D. Illinois
Decided January 30, 2018No. 99 Civ. 1364 (PAE) (GWG)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
*220Before the Court is Shane Watson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B).1 Watson seeks review of his conviction for second-degree murder. In the petition before this Court, Watson alleges that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because (1) his conviction was based on perjured testimony; (2) his conviction was based upon evidence that the prosecution knew or should have known was false; and (3) the prosecution withheld material exculpatory evidence. Watson's attack on his conviction…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Thomas v. ArnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Miller-El v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Pace v. DiGuglielmoSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- McQuiggin v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cosey v. LilleyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
- Lu v. LamannaDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2023
- Lu v. PhillipsDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2023
- Marsden v. ColvinDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2022
- Thorsen v. AnnucciDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2021