28 U.S.C. § 2245
Certificate of trial judge admissible in evidence
On the hearing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment the certificate of the judge who presided at the trial resulting in the judgment, setting forth the facts occurring at the trial, shall be admissible in evidence. Copies of the certificate shall be filed with the court in which the application is pending and in the court in which the trial took place.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Jessica Tavares v. Gene Whitehouse, 851 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2017).
Jessica Tavares v. Gene Whitehouse, 851 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2017). “, 28 U.S.C. § 2245 (last amended June 25, 1948) (“On the hearing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment the certificate of the judge who presided at the trial resulting in the judgment .”
Newland v. Hall, 527 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2008). “" Even if, arguendo, the state's court decision rested largely on the grounds that counsel was ethically bound to follow petitioner's instruction, our review under 28 U.S.C. § 2245 (d)(1) is only of the state court's decision, not of the reasoning it used to arrive at its…”
Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953). “28 U. S. C. § 2245 allows a certificate as to certain facts; § 2246 provides for depositions and affidavits.”
Cortez Miller v. Dennis M. Straub, Warden, Kermit Eldridge Haynes v. Luella Burke, Warden, Saginaw Corr. Facility, 299 F.3d 570 (6th Cir. 2002). “28 U.S.C. § 2245 (d)(1) (providing that a writ of habeas corpus is available for a person in state custody if the state court’s adjudication of the petitioner’s claim “resulted in a decision that .”
Jonathan Green v. Rick Thaler, Dir., 699 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2012). “362, 412-13 (2000) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2245 (d)(1)) (first alteration in original).”
Franklin D. Strader v. Anthony F. Troy, Attorney Gen. of Virginia, & Commonwealth of Virginia, 571 F.2d 1263 (4th Cir. 1978). “Before the North Carolina district court decided the instant case, the trial judge who sentenced Strader upon his conviction for second degree murder filed a certificate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2245 . This certificate stated that before imposing sentence, he received and was…”
Bradley Register v. Rick Thaler, Dir., 681 F.3d 623 (5th Cir. 2012). “Here, however, the failure to develop the record in the state habeas proceeding was not Register’s fault, as the trial court never took any action on his petition.”
Norton v. Spencer, 351 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003). “Some time after the SJC denied Norton’s application for further appellate re *4 view, Norton made two discoveries that he argued constituted “new evidence” under 28 U.S.C. § 2245 (d)(1)(D). The first discovery involved the timing of the assaults.”
James Mammone, III v. Charlotte Jenkins, 49 F.4th 1026 (6th Cir. 2022). “at 1734 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2245 (e)(2)(A)(i), (ii)). Mammone does not purport to satisfy any of these stringent requirements for obtaining discovery or an evidentiary hearing: he does not rely on a new rule of constitutional law, he does not contend that the factual predicate…”
Donald Jones v. Al Luebbers, 359 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2004). “2d at 177-78 (“Questions concerning a judge’s qualification to hear a case usually are not constitutional questions; rather, they are questions answered by common law, statute, or the code of judicial conduct.”). Accordingly, it neither identified nor purported to apply any…”
Herbert Russell Bassette v. Charles E. Thompson, Mary Sue Terry, Attorney Gen. of Virginia, 915 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1990). “As an exhibit to his motion for summary judgment, the appellee attached a certificate of the trial judge as permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 2245 (1988) which states: On the hearing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of the detention of a…”
Ryan Hung-Ping Wang v. William Withworth Lincoln Stokes Anthony J. Celebrezze, Respondents, 811 F.2d 952 (6th Cir. 1987). “The judge maintains that he granted a mistrial on the grounds that the “volume of testimony presented concerning the prior convictions had the potential to misdirect and confuse the jury”.”
28 U.S.C. § 2245(d): 1 case
Morales v. Coyle, 98 F. Supp. 2d 849 (N.D. Ohio 2000).
28 U.S.C. § 2245(i): 1 case
Mcclendon v. Davis (D.N.J. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.