Dave Daley Case

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

While victorious, the plaintiff’s believed that the district court had erred in their decision not to award punitive damages. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the court had erred in denying their motion for summary judgment.

4. Issue/s: Was it an error for the trial judge to accept a guilty plea without confirmation from the defendant that the plea was understood and voluntary?

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

an explanation of why and how each decision was made throughout the entire trial. The basis

“If the behavior of the defendant that killed a person did it on purpose and whether that person expected to have his/her actions to cause death.”

Does your team feel this defendant is competent to stand trial? Why or why not?

Woods filed a K.S.A. § 60-1507 motion for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed; res judicata barred his claim, and even if it did not, “Woods failed to overcome the strong presumption that his attorneys sufficiently investigated [the witness’s] proposed trial testimony.” Woods filed a second § 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that “a colorable claim of actual innocence” required the district court to reconsider the merits of his

3. Although it does not state the outcome of the case it does state that the judge ordered trial

| |to decide whether or not the case has enough legal |come into a trial with no personal biases or prejudices. |

Whether the trial court erred in denying Ndeumeni’s motion for summary judgment for Kemogne’s claim of promissory fraud where the statute of frauds was not satisfied.

conflict generated from rejected VISs and place the court into disrepute. This has resulted in

Regarding harmless error, Appellant argued that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to establish how defense counsel’s approach during the penalty phase would have been different without the Hurst error. Appellant made a substantial evidentiary proffer, which included declarations from past counsel, a psychological expert, and witnesses, that showed that defense counsel’s approach to diminishing the weight and sufficiency of the aggravating factors would have been different and that this would have led to a different result in sentencing.

about allowing the jury to bear in mind that harm at the same time as it considers the

evidence with regard to the issue. The Supreme Court believed the respondent was denied due