28 U.S.C. § 2247
Documentary evidence
On application for a writ of habeas corpus documentary evidence, transcripts of proceedings upon arraignment, plea and sentence and a transcript of the oral testimony introduced on any previous similar application by or in behalf of the same petitioner, shall be admissible in evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2023 · leading case: Garuti v. Roden, 733 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2013).
Garuti v. Roden, 733 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2013). “§ 2246 , and full transcripts, 28 U.S.C. § 2247 , but unsworn statements are not made admissible by the statute.”
United States of Am. Ex Rel. Carl Buford v. Robert J. Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn Corr. Facility,respondent-Appellee, 524 F.2d 147 (2d Cir. 1975). “” With his petition Buford filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2247 , 2249, 2 for the production by the Attorney General or by the Rockland County District Attorney of certain records for use by the district court in its hearing on Buford’s application, including the state…”
Leroy John Hampton v. Donald Wyrick, 588 F.2d 632 (8th Cir. 1979). “Hampton also argues that the federal district court erred in denying his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2247 and 2249, made after the district court had denied relief, for production of certain documents, including his indictment, plea, various transcripts and the judgment.”
Jones v. State of Montana, 235 F. Supp. 673 (D. Mont. 1964). “Both the minutes and the transcript which were filed herein and received in evidence pursuant to 28 U.S. C.A. § 2247, show that the reading of the information was waived, and the transcript shows that the only mention of the time of the offense, was a statement by the Deputy…”
Riffle v. King, 302 F. Supp. 992 (N.D.W. Va. 1969). “” This succinct statement is raised verbatim from Petitioners’ brief to this Court and is employed because it clearly and concisely states the total position of Petitioners.”
Strauss v. Smith, 417 F.2d 132 (7th Cir. 1969). “28 U.S.C. § 2247 . In Hyser v. Reed, 115 U.”
Darden v. Von Blanckensee (D. Ariz. 2019). “Petitioner has filed an objection and, 18 relatedly, a 28 U.S.C. § 2247 Motion asking the Court to accept as true that Petitioner 19 owns a master lock purchased in 2013.”
Arthur Thomas v. Frank Eyman, Superintendent of the State Prison of Arizona, 235 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1956). “See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2247 . 17 . State v. Thomas, 78 Ariz.”
Enriques v. The Dist. Attorney of the Cnty. of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa. 2022). “28 U.S.C. § 2247 (d). Statutory tolling under 28 U.”
(HC) (DP) Holt v. Brown (E.D. Cal. 2020). “] 23 24 28 U.S.C. § 2247 . In addition, in those proceedings: 25 [E]vidence may be taken orally or by deposition, or, in the discretion of the judge, by affidavit.”
Abdulrazzak v. Fluke (D.S.D. 2019). “He cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 2247 and 2249 claiming that he did not receive the habeas transcripts and thus “could not submit a brief on the contrary to clearly establish federal law[.”
Abdulrazzak v. Fluke (D.S.D. 2019). “He cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 2247 and 2249 claiming that he did not receive the habeas transcripts and thus “could not submit a brief on the contrary to clearly establish federal law[.”
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.