testimony of an informant represented the only evidence against petitioner

Barajas v. Wise, No. 06-15494 (9th Cir. March 23, 2007)
Clearly established federal law requires the prosecution to provide reasons specific to the case in litigation if it declines to disclose the names and addresses of key witnesses. Grant of habeas relief in a drug-related case is affirmed where the testimony of an informant represented the only evidence against petitioner, and the state provided no reasons specific to the case for why it should not disclose the requested information.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0615494p.pdf

Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed

Miller v. Vannatta, No. 05-3978 (7th Cir. March 15, 2007)
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition where the Indiana Court of Appeals unreasonably applied federal law in concluding that defense counsel's decision to stand mute at defendant's sentencing hearing did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/053978p.pdf

death penalty case moved pro se to waive further federal proceedings

Comer v. Schriro, No. 98-99003 (9th Cir. March 15, 2007)
In proceedings arising when habeas petitioner in a death penalty case moved pro se to waive further federal proceedings, to terminate representation by his habeas counsel, and for dismissal of his appeal, the motions are granted and the appeal is dismissed where petitioner was competent and had voluntarily decided to waive further proceedings.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9899003p.pdf

The COA inquiry asks only if the District Court’s decision was debatable.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 01—7662
THOMAS JOE MILLER-EL, PETITIONER v. JANIE
COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[February 25, 2003]

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we once again examine when a state prisoner can appeal the denial or dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1986 two Dallas County assistant district attorneys used peremptory strikes to exclude 10 of the 11 African-Americans eligible to serve on the jury which tried petitioner Thomas Joe Miller-El. During the ensuing 17 years, petitioner has been unsuccessful in establishing, in either state or federal court, that his conviction and death sentence must be vacated because the jury selection procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause and our holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The claim now arises in a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. The procedures and standards applicable in the case are controlled by the habeas corpus statute codified at Title 28, chapter 153 of the United States Code, most recently amended in a substantial manner by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In the interest of finality AEDPA constrains a federal court’s power to disturb state-court convictions.


To secure habeas relief, petitioner must demonstrate that a state court’s finding of the absence of purposeful discrimination was incorrect by clear and convincing evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), and that the corresponding factual determination was “objectively unreasonable” in light of the record before the court. The State represents to us that petitioner will not be able to satisfy his burden. That may or may not be the case. It is not, however, the question before us. The COA inquiry asks only if the District Court’s decision was debatable. Our threshold examination convinces us that it was.

The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.