introduction of the confession violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, and the error was not harmless

Stevens v. Ortiz (10/19/06 - No. 05-1250)
Denial of a habeas petition in a first-degree murder case is reversed where a conclusion -- that the admission of a non-testifying accomplice's confession, which also inculpated petitioner in a murder-for-hire, did not violate petitioner's rights under the Confrontation Clause -- was contrary to clearly established federal law, the introduction of the confession violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, and the error was not harmless. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/051250.html

untested DNA

Apanovitch v. Houk (10/19/06 - No. 94-3117)
Denial of a 1991 habeas petition in a death penalty case is reversed in part and remanded, pursuant to a Brady claim, in light of the state’s apparent failure to provide potentially exculpatory materials to defendant prior to the filing of his petition, and of the untested nature of certain DNA evidence. The remainder of the district court's order is affirmed over remaining Brady claims, a claim of insufficient evidence, and challenges to the admission of certain witnesses. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/943117p.pdf
Spisak v. Mitchell (10/20/06 - No. 03-4034)
Denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case is reversed in part as to denial of claims that: 1) petitioner's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the mitigation phase of his trial; and 2) unanimity and “acquittal-first” jury instructions infringed petitioner's constitutional rights. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/034034p.pdf

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Stanley v. Bartley, No. 06-2184 (7th Cir. October 17, 2006)

Grant of a petition for habeas corpus by a convicted murderer is affirmed where defense counsel's failure to interview witnesses prior to trial rendered his assistance ineffective. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/062184p.pdf

Due Process violated

Niederstadt v. Nixon, No. 05-4329 (8th Cir. October 17, 2006)

Grant of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a reinstated conviction for sodomy is affirmed where, in applying its construction of the sodomy statute at issue to defendant, the Missouri Supreme Court violated his right to due process as neither the plain language of the statute nor state law at the time of defendant's conduct defined "forcible compulsion" as encompassing his acts. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/054329p.pdf

habeas corpus winner

US v. Nelson (10/09/06 - No. 06-6071)

An order denying defendant's motion to amend and supplement his previously denied motion for a writ of habeas corpus is vacated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the motion had to be treated as a successive motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. section 2255. Further, construing defendant's notice of appeal as an implied application for authorization to file another § 2255 motion, authorization is denied. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/066071.html

Counsel failed to investigate

Outten v. Kearney (09/28/06 - No. 04-9003)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus in a first degree murder capital punishment case is granted and the case remanded for resentencing where counsel's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation of defendant's background in anticipation of his capital sentencing violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/049003p.p

Ineffective assistance of counsel

In re Hernandez (09/27/06 - No. G035909).

Habeas petition challenging conviction of first degree murder, kidnapping, hit-and-run driving causing death, and making a fraudulent insurance claim, finding of sanity by jury, and 25-year-to-life sentence, is granted as to the issue of petitioner's sanity where trial counsel committed prejudicial error by failing to object to the testimony of the prosecution’s expert witnesses at the sanity trial. http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2006/g035909.htmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/g035909.pdf