- 8 -
Petitioner filed with the District Court a motion for new
trial on the ground that the Government had improperly failed to
disclose certain exculpatory evidence and improperly used false
testimony of petitioner’s attorney. The District Court denied
petitioner’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court’s ruling.
In December 2001, petitioner filed with the District Court a
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence and judgment
of conviction. Petitioner alleged in the motion that he was a
victim of prosecutorial misconduct because the Government had
failed to disclose material, exculpatory evidence, including
evidence that his attorney had contracted to buy a condominium at
one of petitioner’s developments and that petitioner had provided
the deposit. The District Court denied petitioner’s motion. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which was
denied. The judgment of conviction entered against petitioner is
final.
OPINION
A. Whether Collateral Estoppel Applies, and If So, to What
Extent
1. Background
The parties dispute whether petitioner is collaterally
estopped by his criminal convictions from denying certain facts.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011