BROFFORD

v.

MORRIS, SUPERINTENDENT, SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Carrasco, 537 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1976)
  …ich neither adverse inferences nor benefits flow.2 [*377] The case is not comparable to United States v. Lane, 6 Cir., 1973, 479 F. 2d 1134, 1135-36, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 861, 94 S.Ct. 78, 38 L.Ed.2d 112, or United States v. Terrell, 2 Cir., 1973, 474 U.S. 872, 877, both of which are cited to us by the government. In those cases agents had destroyed their own rough notes after incorporating the substance of them into final reports. It may be that the agent — or witness, as in Ogden II, supra —who adapts a…
• Kordenbrock v. Scroggy, 889 F.2d 69 (6th Cir. 1989)
  …there was no such showing, and his findings with regard to juror impartiality are to be given special deference. See Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984); Brofford v. Marshall, 751 F. 2d 845 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 872, 106 S.Ct. 194, 88 L.Ed.2d 163 (1985); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The court concluded after hearing testimony from several experts that there was no actual prejudice, nor was there a likelihood that appellant could not get a fair trial in the area. It fo…
• Braley v. Shillinger, 902 F.2d 20 (10th Cir. 1990)
  …§ 2245(d). We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Braley was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing given the state of the record. See Brofford v. Marshall, 751 F. 2d 845, 853 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 872, 106 S.Ct. 194, 88 L.Ed.2d 163 (1985); cf. United States v. Wilson, 534 F. 2d 375, 379 (D.C.Cir.1976). We GRANT the certificate of probable cause and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and AFFIRM the decision of the district court. . W.R.E. 6…