Emem Ufot Udoh v. Minnesota

Rulings Below: The District Court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The federal constitutional claim presented on grounds consistent with Petitioner’s actual innocence is: Issue One: Whether Petitioner Is Entitled To An Acquittal Or New Trial On The Newly Discovered Exonerating Evidence Showing Actual Innocence Based On Recantations Of Key Material Witnesses’ Testimony In Light Of The Evidence Received At The Held July 27, 2018. July 30, 2018 Through August 01. 2018 Evidentiary Hearing? Apposite Authority Larrison v. United States, 24 F. 2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928) Rainer u. State, 566 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1997) Herrera v, Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)?

Rulings Below: The District Court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The federal constitutional claim presented is: Issue Two: Whether Petitioner Received Minn. Const. Art I, §6, §7, §10 And Sixth Amendment Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Under State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. 2013) And Strickland v. Washington For Failure To (A) Interview And Investigate To Discover The New Exonerating Evidence Showing Actual Innocence Based On Recantations Of Key Material Witnesses’ Testimony In Ground One. (B) Advise Petitioner His Due Process Right To Consular Assistances, (C) Object To Credibility Vouching By Ms. White, And (D) Object To Inadmissible Interrogatory Recordings And Statements Obtained Without Consent, Miranda And Tennessen Warnings? Apposite Authority State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493, 503 (Minn. 2013) Strickland u. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984)

Rulings Below: The District Court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The federal constitutional claim presented is: Issue Three: Whether Petitioner Received Minn. Const. Art I, §6, §7, §10 And Sixth Amendment Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel Under State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. 2013) And Strickland v. Washington For Failure To Effectively And Adequately Raise Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Claim During Direct Appeal For Trial Attorney Failure To (A) Interview And Investigate To Discover The New Exonerating Evidence Showing Actual Innocence Based On Recantations Of Key Material Witnesses’ Testimony In Ground One, (B) Petition By Udoh - Page 1 Advise Petitioner His Due Process Right To Consular Assistances, (C) Object To Credibility Vouching By Ms. White, And (D) Object To Inadmissible Interrogatory Recordings And Statements Obtained Without Consent, Miranda And Tennessen Warnings? Apposite Authority State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493, 503 (Minn. 2013) Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984)

Rulings Below: The District Court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The federal constitutional claim presented on grounds consistent with Petitioner’s innocence is: Issue Four: Whether The Government And Ms. White Violated Petitioner’s Clearly Established Minn. Const. Art I, §6, §7, §10 And Constitutional Due Process Right Of The Fifth And Fourteenth Amendment Under Brady v. Maryland And Its Progeny In Light Of The Evidence Received At The Held July 27. 2018. July 30. 2018 Through August 01. 2018 Evidentiary Hearing Which Materially Impacted The Fairness Of Petitioner’s Trial? Apposite Authority Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) State v. Zeimet, 310 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1981) State v. Hall, 315 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. 1982) State v. Schwantes, 314 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 1982) State v. Hunt, 615 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2000) Gorman v. State, 619 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000) State v. Miramontes, 2008 WL 2572818 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)

Rulings Below: The District Court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The federal constitutional claim presented on grounds consistent with Petitioner’s innocence is: Issue Five: Whether The Government And Ms. White Violated Petitioner’s Clearly Established Minn. Const. Art I, §6, §7, §10 And Constitutional Due Process Right Of The Fifth And Fourteenth Amendment Under Mooney V. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935); Pyle V. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942); Napue V. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959); Giglio V. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 152 - 55 (1972) And Their Progeny In Light Of The Evidence Received At The Held July 27. 2018. July 30. 2018 Through August 01. 2018 Evidentiary Hearing That Seriously Undermines The Fairness Of Petitioner’s Trial? Apposite Authority Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935) Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942) Napue u. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) Petition By Udoh - Page 2 6. Rulings Below: The District Court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The federal constitutional claim presented is: Issue Six. Whether Ms. White’s Credibility Vouching Of K.K.W. And K.C.W. Testimony Violated Petitioner’s Clearly Established Minn. Const. Art I, §6, §7, §10, Fifth And Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights? Apposite Authority State v. Reardon, 245 Minn. 509 73 N.W.2d 192 (1955) State v. Mayhorn, 720 N.W.2d 776 (2006) State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 300 (Minn. 2006)