Dan Epps
👤 SpeakerAppearances Over Time
Podcast Appearances
Right. Also, the note is more relevant to a Brady claim. The idea of the note is we should have given this note to the defense because then that would have been a clue for them to figure out that Snape is lying. Well, the note is also evidence of the NAPU claim, right? Right. So the failure to turn over the note is a Brady claim.
Right. Also, the note is more relevant to a Brady claim. The idea of the note is we should have given this note to the defense because then that would have been a clue for them to figure out that Snape is lying. Well, the note is also evidence of the NAPU claim, right? Right. So the failure to turn over the note is a Brady claim.
And the note causes us to suspect that the prosecution knew all of the question mark, right? Yes. Because the prosecution didn't know what was going on. They weren't sure.
And the note causes us to suspect that the prosecution knew all of the question mark, right? Yes. Because the prosecution didn't know what was going on. They weren't sure.
Right. And the Cassell brief part of the complaint also is that because the attorney general has now taken Glossop's side, you know, you can't, you can't trust the record here because it might be, at least there's an allegation.
Right. And the Cassell brief part of the complaint also is that because the attorney general has now taken Glossop's side, you know, you can't, you can't trust the record here because it might be, at least there's an allegation.
I think you can't grant that motion unless you have a theory of what to do with all this non-record evidence. Because he's going to want to talk about the non-record evidence.
I think you can't grant that motion unless you have a theory of what to do with all this non-record evidence. Because he's going to want to talk about the non-record evidence.
Yeah. Okay. So as I understand the Supreme Court's ruling, we've got three issues. Yeah. One is the jurisdictional question. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction or is this barred by an AISG? Adequate and independent state ground. Yes. Thank you. Two is the merits. Was there a NAPU violation? Yep. And three is the remedy. Yep. Okay. And I would say...
Yeah. Okay. So as I understand the Supreme Court's ruling, we've got three issues. Yeah. One is the jurisdictional question. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction or is this barred by an AISG? Adequate and independent state ground. Yes. Thank you. Two is the merits. Was there a NAPU violation? Yep. And three is the remedy. Yep. Okay. And I would say...
Okay. And just to put it on the table, the majority says, yes, there's jurisdiction. This is not an independent. There's not an independent state procedural bar. And we got six votes on that. Six votes on that. Yes, there's a NIPU violation. Or yes, the lower court has misapplied NIPU. And then on the remedy, there are six votes to say we are confident that there is a NIPU violation. Right?
Okay. And just to put it on the table, the majority says, yes, there's jurisdiction. This is not an independent. There's not an independent state procedural bar. And we got six votes on that. Six votes on that. Yes, there's a NIPU violation. Or yes, the lower court has misapplied NIPU. And then on the remedy, there are six votes to say we are confident that there is a NIPU violation. Right?
We are confident there's a Nupu violation. Is that because he dealt with the Glossop case when he was on the 10th Circuit? I mean, this case has been on the 10th Circuit for 20 years, so I assume. I mean, that must be. I assume he's been on a Glossop case.
We are confident there's a Nupu violation. Is that because he dealt with the Glossop case when he was on the 10th Circuit? I mean, this case has been on the 10th Circuit for 20 years, so I assume. I mean, that must be. I assume he's been on a Glossop case.
And then to say, no need to remand to the lower court to try the Nupu analysis over again because they're so clearly wrong that we just conclude that he needs a new trial.
And then to say, no need to remand to the lower court to try the Nupu analysis over again because they're so clearly wrong that we just conclude that he needs a new trial.
Six to say jurisdiction, six to say they got it wrong, and five to say they got it wrong and they can't possibly be right, so we'll just fix it.