interest of justice exception in Delaware

2021The Younger court utilized a conservative approach in interpreting this “fundamental fairness” exception, noting that it is “a narrow one and has only been applied in limited circumstances . . . .”50 The defendant bears the burden of proving that he or she was deprived of a substantial constitutional right.51 49 Weedon v. State, 750 A.2d 521, 527-28 (Del. 2000) (footnotes and citations omitted); see also Zebroski v. State, 12 A.3d 1115 (Del. 2010). 50 Younger, 580 A.2d at 554 ; see Bailey v. State, 588 A.3d 1121 , 1130 (Del. 1991). 51 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555 ; see Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1

2015The bodies were discovered next to one another, face up, and covered by a burgundy-colored bed 262 Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1364, 1366 (Del. 1992). 263 Super.

2021The Younger court utilized a conservative approach in interpreting this “fundamental fairness” exception, noting that it is “a narrow one and has only been applied in limited circumstances . . . .”50 The defendant bears the burden of proving that he or she was deprived of a substantial constitutional right.51 49 Weedon v. State, 750 A.2d 521, 527-28 (Del. 2000) (footnotes and citations omitted); see also Zebroski v. State, 12 A.3d 1115 (Del. 2010). 50 Younger, 580 A.2d at 554 ; see Bailey v. State, 588 A.3d 1121 , 1130 (Del. 1991). 51 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555 ; see Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1

2014Apr. 17, 2003). 10 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990) (explaining that conclusory statements do not satisfy the interest of justice exception under Rule 61(i)(2) and (i)(4) or the miscarriage of justice exception under Rule 61(i)(5)).

2021None of Swan’s Brady allegations reveal any subsequent changes in factual or legal circumstances that warrant review under the interest of justice exception.228 Likewise, Swan has not shown a constitutional violation that would constitute a miscarriage of justice under Rule 61(i)(5).229 224 A9277. 225 Opening Br. 64-65. 226 A2092-95; A9201. 227 A2034-39. 228 Weedon, 750 A.2d at 527-28 . 229 Wright, 91 A.3d at 985-86. 52 Fourth and finally, Swan contends that the State improperly elicited false testimony concerning Edwards’s carjacking.230 This claim faces the same procedural bars as the allega

2015June 3, 1991). 265 Flamer, 585 A.2d at 745–46; Weedon, 750 A.2d at 527–29 (discussing witness recantation as a factual development for purposes of the interest of justice exception). 266 State v. Rosa, 1992 WL 302295 , at *7 n. 10 (Del.

2021The Younger court utilized a conservative approach in interpreting this “fundamental fairness” exception, noting that it is “a narrow one and has only been applied in limited circumstances . . . .”50 The defendant bears the burden of proving that he or she was deprived of a substantial constitutional right.51 49 Weedon v. State, 750 A.2d 521, 527-28 (Del. 2000) (footnotes and citations omitted); see also Zebroski v. State, 12 A.3d 1115 (Del. 2010). 50 Younger, 580 A.2d at 554 ; see Bailey v. State, 588 A.3d 1121 , 1130 (Del. 1991). 51 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555 ; see Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1

2017Therefore, absent a showing of actual prejudice or infringement upon a fundamental right sufficient to give rise to a presumption of prejudice, the Defendant has not met the interest of justice standard.° 5 Parker makes explicit references to the trial court analyzing the proffered evidence and ruling on its admissibility See Parker v. State, 85 A.3d 682, 684-85 (Del. 2014). 6 See State v. Ryle, 2015 WL 5004903 , at *l (Del.