U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1990

Janice Buttrum, Cross-Appellant v. Gary Black, Warden, Middle Georgia Correctional Institute, Women's Division, Cross-Appellee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided September 17, 1990 · Fay, Kravitch, Cox

908 F.2d 695 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Susan V. Boleyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary Beth Westmoreland, William B. Hill, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellant, cross-appellee., George H. Kendall, New York City, Bruce S. Harvey, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner-appellee, cross-appellant.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Kleypas (Kan. 2001)
Gibson v. Turpin (Ga. 1999)
Magwood v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1996)
David Larry Nelson, Cross-Appellee v. John E. Nagle, Warden, Cross-Appellant (11th Cir. 1993)
Robert Alton Harris v. Daniel Vasquez, Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin (9th Cir. 1991)
Ford v. Schofield (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 2007)
State v. Fredrick Sledge (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)
People v. Cloutier (Ill. 1997)
People v. Cloutier (Ill. 1997)
People v. Moore (Ill. 1996)
Rodriguez v. State (Tex. App. 1995)
De Freece v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)
People v. Page (Ill. 1993)
Pruett v. Thompson (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1991)
Buttram (Janice) v. Black (Gary) (11th Cir. 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

908 F.2d 695

Janice BUTTRUM, Petitioner-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,
v.
Gary BLACK, Warden, Middle Georgia Correctional Institute,
Women's Division, Respondent-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

No. 89-8844.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

July 20, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Denied Sept. 17, 1990.

Susan V. Boleyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary Beth Westmoreland, William B. Hill, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellant, cross-appellee.

George H. Kendall, New York City, Bruce S. Harvey, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner-appellee, cross-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Harold C. Murphy, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FAY, KRAVITCH and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal involves a prisoner's petition for habeas corpus relief. The petitioner presented numerous issues to the United States District Court. In a very detailed and scholarly order, dated September 20, 1989, 721 F.Supp. 1268, the district court denied petitioner relief as to the guilt/innocence phase of trial and granted relief as to the sentencing phase. We AFFIRM the ruling of the district court for the reasons stated in its order.

COX, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:

I agree that the district court properly denied petitioner relief as to the guilt/innocence phase of trial for the reasons stated in its order.

The district court granted relief as to the sentencing phase on several grounds. One of the grounds on which petitioner was held entitled to relief was that the admission of Dr. Adam's testimony at the sentencing phase violated petitioner's constitutional rights under Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). I agree that relief was properly granted on that ground for reasons stated by the district court in its order, and I find it unnecessary to decide whether the district court was correct in concluding that petitioner was entitled to relief as to the sentencing phase on other grounds.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.