United States Second Circuit

Because 1) the state court's legal conclusions were consistent with federal law, 2) its factual findings at the post-conviction hearing were reasonable, and 3) all material facts were developed during the course of that proceeding, the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2254 is affirmed, even where the state's eyewitnesses recanted their trial testimony.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/14/2003
• Published 02/14/2003

Judges

• PER CURIAM., Before:  WINTER, McLAUGHLIN, and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David N. Rosen, Rosen & Dolan, P.C., New Haven, CT, for Petitioner-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Carolyn K. Longstreth, Senior Assistant State's Attorney (Richard F. Jacobson, Special Assistant State's Attorney, on the brief), Office of the Chief State's Attorney, Rocky Hill, CT, for Respondent-Appellee.