Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126 (3rd Cir. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126 (3rd Cir. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
70 citation events (70 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. Reese, B. (pasuperct, 2020-07-31)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Reese, B.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
We have also recognized that undisclosed Brady material that would have provided a different avenue of impeachment is material, even where the witness is otherwise impeached Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 134 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Maribel Nunez
3rd Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
Evidence is material “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. (quoting Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 133 (3d Cir. 2011)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jerome Gibson v. Secretary Pennsylvania Departm
3rd Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 133 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Conley v. United States, 415 F.3d 183, 189 (1st Cir. 2005)), vacated on other grounds, Wetzel v. Lambert, 565 U.S. 520 (2012). 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
3rd Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
In Lambert v. Beard, we stated 73 that “it is patently unreasonable to presume—without explanation—that whenever a witness is impeached in one manner, any other impeachment becomes immaterial.” 633 F.3d 126, 134 (3d Cir. 2011), judgment vacated on other grounds sub nom.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dennis v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
3rd Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
It is true that state courts act unreasonably when holding that merely because a witness “is impeached in one manner, any other impeachment becomes immaterial.” Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 134 (3d Cir.2011), vacated on other grounds sub nom.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Lambert v. Beard (4×)
3rd Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
Id. at 131 (citations to record omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dennis v. Wetzel
E.D. Pa. · 2013 · confidence medium
As the Third Circuit stated, “[I]t is patently unreasonable to presume — without explanation — that whenever a witness is impeached in one manner, any other impeachment becomes immaterial.” Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 134 (3d Cir.2011) cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds Wetzel v. Lambert, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1195 , 182 L.Ed.2d 35 (2012).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Friedman
3rd Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
However, “impeachment evidence, if cumulative of similar impeachment evidence used at trial ... is superfluous and therefore has little, if any, probative value.” Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 133 (3d Cir.2011) (citations omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Walker (4×) also: Cited "see"
3rd Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
“Information is material ‘only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 133 (3d Cir.2011) (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Munchinski v. Wilson
W.D. Pa. · 2011 · confidence medium
It is important to note that this standard is different from finding that the state court applied clearly established federal law incorrectly. “ ‘The unreasonable application test is an objective one-a federal court may not grant habeas relief merely because it concludes that the state court applied federal law erroneously or incorrectly.’ ” Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 133 (2011) (quoting Jacobs v. Horn, 395 F.3d 92, 100 (3d Cir.2005)).
cited Cited "see" Abdul-Salaam v. Beard
M.D. Penn. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 134-35 (3d Cir.2011), rev’d on other grounds.
discussed Cited "see" Wetzel v. Lambert (2×)
SCOTUS · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lambert v. Beard, 633 F. 3d 126, 135-136 (CA3 2011).
cited Cited "see, e.g." NASH v. SMITH
E.D. Pa. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id.; see also Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 134 (3d Cir. 2011), vacated on other grounds sub nom.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Moore v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
3rd Cir. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Moreover, in Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the Supreme Court clearly established that Brady “applies with equal force to the prosecutor’s failure to disclose evidence which could have been used for impeachment purposes.” Wilson v. Beard, 589 F.3d 651, 659 (3d Cir.2009); see also Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 133 (3d Cir.2011).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lawrence Fisher v. Gerald Rozum
3rd Cir. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lambert v. Beard, 633 F.3d 126, 130 (3d Cir.2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lambert
v.
Beard
07-9005.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Nov 23, 2010.
633 F.3d 126
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 07-9005 ____________

JAMES LAMBERT, Appellant

v. JEFFREY BEARD, COMMISSIONER, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WILLIAM STRICKMAN, III, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GREENE; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA ____________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Civil No. 02-cv-09034) District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson ____________

ORDER ____________

Appellant James Lambert has been under sentence of death since 1984, during which time the case has wended its way through the state and federal courts. On

September 30, 2010, this Court heard argument on Lambert’s appeal from the District

Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, an appeal that challenges the District Court’s disposition of the various contentions Lambert raised as to both his conviction for first degree murder and the sentence of death imposed thereon.

Unless there is a prior disposition of this case, an Opinion of this Court will issue

in due course addressing the contentions raised to the conviction itself and whether the judgment of the District Court as to the conviction should be affirmed. This Court, however, having concluded that, whether reviewed de novo or under AEDPA’s deferential standard of review, the District Court erred in finding that there had not been a violation of the rule of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988).

IT is, therefore, on this 23rd day of November 2010

ORDERED that the sentence of death be and hereby is VACATED and, pending further order of this Court, any conditions and/or disabilities to which petitioner is being subjected because of the sentence of death, including but not limited to, being housed other than in the general population, be lifted.

/s/ Maryanne Trump Barry Circuit Judge A True Copy :

Marcia M . Waldron, Clerk Dated: November 23, 2010 nmr/cc: Thomas W. Dolgenos, Esq. Joshua S. Goldwert, Esq. Stuart B. Lev, Esq. Daniel Silverman, Esq.

[*2]