BUNDY v. GARMAN et al
| ERIC BUNDY |
| MARK GARMAN, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
| 2:2017cv03308 |
| July 24, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Philadelphia |
| ELIZABETH T. HEY |
| JOSEPH F. LEESON |
| 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
30
ORDER OF 4/24/2019 THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE RESPONSE TO THE PETITION, THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE: ELIZBETH T. HEY, AND RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE STAY AND APPOINTME NT OF COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE R&R, ECF NO. 25, IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S CLAIMS THAT HIS CONFRONTATION CLAUSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY THE INTROD UCTION OF THE STATEMENT HIS CO-DEFENDANT GAVE TO THE POLICE WITHOUT PROPER REDACTION AND THAT HIS SENTENCE VIOLATES APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY. EXECUTION OF THE WRIT IS STAYED FOR 180 DAYS TO PERMIT THE COMMONWEALTH TO RETRY PETITIONER. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, THE WRIT IS DENIED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. SIGNED BY JUDGE: JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 4/24/2019. 4/24/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (DT)
|
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.
