Jackson v. Bradshaw

2 Citing cases

  1. Cornwell v. Parris

    3:19-CV-00126-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 7, 2022)

    The state court's holding is not unreasonable where it is not clear that these witnesses could indeed testify to information favorable to Petitioner's defense or that his defense was prejudiced by the lack of their testimony. See e.g. Jackson v. Bradshaw, No. 2:03-cv-983, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130273, at *25-26 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2015). Turning now to Petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective for his unfulfilled promise regarding this testimony to the jury, the Court first notes that Petitioner is correct that unfulfilled promises to the jury may render counsel ineffective.

  2. Bocook v. Mohr

    CASE NO. 2:18-CV-01059 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2018)

    Stated somewhat differently, "when brought in the context of a habeas corpus action, a viable Rule 60(d) independent action requires a strong showing of actual innocence." Jackson v. Bradshaw, No. 2:03-cv-983, 2015 WL 5679632, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2015) (citing Mitchell, 651 F.3d at 596; Washington v. Howes, 2013 WL 5245075, at *2). Petitioner has failed to make such a showing here.