REQUIRED STATEMENT FOR PETITION FOR REHEARING
WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1), counsel for Petitioner-Appellant John G. Spirko, Jr. hereby state its belief that the panel's 2-1 decision on the merits conflicts with the case law of the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and other Courts of Appeals. Rehearing by the panel, or consideration by the full Court, is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity, and these death penalty proceedings involve questions of exceptional importance:
I. The Majority's Decision That the State Did Not Withhold Evidence in Violation of Brady v. Maryland Ignored the Factual Record and the Case Law of the Supreme Court, this Circuit, and Other Circuits.
(Pages 10-14)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
Kyles v. Whiley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999).
Banks v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 1256 (2004).
Clay v. Black, 479 F.2d 319 (6th Cir. 1973).
Schledwitz v. United States, 169 F.3d 1003 (6th Cir. 1999).
Jamison v. Collins, 291 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2002).
Castleberry v. Brigano, 349 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2003).
Levin v. Katzenbach, 363 F.2d 287 (D.C. Cir. 1966).
II. The Majority's Decision That the Suppressed Evidence Was Not Favorable to Mr. Spirko Disregarded the Case the State Presented at Trial and Controlling Case Law from the Supreme Court, This Circuit, and Other Circuits. (Pages 14-16.)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Banks v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 1256 (2004).
Seiber v. Coyle, No. 97-3002, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 17517 (6th Cir. July 27, 1998).
Schledwitz v. United States, 169 F.3d 1003 (6th Cir. 1999).
Jamison v. Collins, 291 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2002).
Stumpf v. Mitchell, 367 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2004).
Brown v. Borg, 951 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1991).
PAGE ii
East v. Johnson, 123 F,3d 235 (5th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Scheer, 168 F.3d 445 (11th Cir. 1999).
III. The Case of State Presented at Trial and the Controlling Case Law of the Supreme Court, This Circuit, and Other Circuits Belies the Majority's Conclusion That the Suppressed Gibson Evidence Was Not Material. (Pages 16-18.)\
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Banks v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 1256 (2004).
Kyles v. Whiley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
Schledwitz v. United States, 169 F.3d 1003 (6th Cir. 1999).
Castleberry v. Brigano, 349 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2003).
Smith v. Secretary of N.M. Dep't of Corrections, 50 F3d 801 (10th Cir. 1995).
IV. The Panel's Failure To Analyze the State's Presentation of a False Case at Trial Overlooked the Case Law of the Supreme Court and This Court. (Pages 18-22.)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935).
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935).
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959).
Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967).
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999).
Stumpf v. Mitchell, 367 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2004).
V. The Majority Deprived Mr. Spirko of an Evidentiary Hearing in Violation of Townsend v. Sain. (Pages 22-24.)
Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963)
Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461 (1974).
McMillan v. Barksdale, 823 F.2d 981 (6th Cir. 1987).
Signed By: Thomas C. Hill
ii
CONTINUED TO PAGE 1
|
