BROASTER v. SUPERINTENDENT SCI HOUTZDALE et al
| LARKEEM BROASTER |
| SUPERINTENDENT SCI HOUTZDALE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, SETH WILLIAMS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, THOMAS CORBETT |
| 2:2010cv03591 |
| July 22, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Philadelphia |
| JAN E. DUBOIS |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
26
ORDER AS FOLLOWS: THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254 IS CONDITIONALLY GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO OBJECT TO IMPROPER JURY INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE INFERENCES THE JURY COULD D RAW FROM PETITIONER'S POSSESSION-THREE MONTHS AFTER THE MURDER-OF A DIFFERENT HANDGUN OF THE SAME CALIBER AS THE MURDER WEAPON; PETITIONER'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ARE VACATED. RESPONDENTS SHALL RELEASE PETITIONER FROM CUSTODY UNLESS HE IS RETRIED WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: THE R & R OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS DATED 2/25/11, IS APPROVED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART; PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE R & R ARE OVERRULED IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 8/4/11. 8/5/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fb)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
