Bell v. Poole

Second Circuit

Bell v. Poole

103 F. App'x 691

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 2004

DocketDocket No. 03-2295

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 F. App'x 691 (Bell v. Poole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Poole, 103 F. App'x 691 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-appellant Giovanni Bell (“Bell”) appeals from the April 10, 2003 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ross, J.), denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims that the prosecution violated the strictures of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to obtain from the Department of Correction (“DOC”) a photograph of a co-defendant that could have undermined the identification of Petitioner as the perpetrator of the offense conduct. For substantially the reasons provided by the district court, we cannot conclude that the state court decision finding no Brady violation was contrary to, or unreasonably applied, Brady and its Supreme Court progeny.

Because we also find Petitioner’s other claims to be without merit, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-appellant Giovanni Bell (“Bell”) appeals from the April 10, 2003 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ross, J.), denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims that the prosecution violated the strictures of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to obtain from the Department of Correction (“DOC”) a photograph of a co-defendant that could have undermined the identification of Petitioner as the perpetrator of the offense conduct. For substantially the reasons provided by the district court, we cannot conclude that the state court decision finding no Brady violation was contrary to, or unreasonably applied, Brady and its Supreme Court progeny.

Because we also find Petitioner’s other claims to be without merit, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F. App'x 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-poole-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack