No. 21-1044
Bryan P. Stirling, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al. v. James Nathaniel Bryant, III
Tags: capital-punishment capital-sentencing due-process fact-finding federal-review habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance state-court-deference
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-05-12
Question Presented (from Petition)
In review of a claim fully adjudicated in state court, did the district court violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254's deference mandate and offend the principles of finality and federalism by upsetting a capital sentence based on mere disagreement with record-supported state court fact-findings?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
In review of a claim fully adjudicated in state court, did the district court violate 28-usc-2254, finality, federalism
Docket Entries
2022-05-16
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
2022-05-16
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-26
Reply of petitioners Bryan P. Stirling, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-04-11
Brief of respondent James Nathaniel Bryant, III in opposition filed.
2022-04-11
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent James Nathaniel Bryant, III.
2022-02-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 11, 2022.
2022-02-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 25, 2022 to April 11, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2022)
Attorneys
Bryan P. Stirling, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
Melody Jane Brown — South Carolina Attorney General's Office, Petitioner
James Nathaniel Bryant, III
Lindsey Sterling Vann — Justice 360, Respondent