Opinion of the Court — Young v. Withrow

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: April 2, 2002
Case: Young v. Withrow
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

ORDER Robert Earl Young, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). Young is serving a term of nonparolable life, consecutively to a five-year term, imposed by the Detroit Recorder’s Court on March 28, 1999, after a jury convicted Young of first-degree murder and felony-firearm. Young’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in an unpublished opinion issued on January 10, 1997. By order entered November 7, 1997, the Michigan Supreme Court denied Young’s application for leave to appeal thereto. Thereafter, Young filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus raising the following eight claims: 1. There is reversible error where the prosecutor introduces evidence which clearly communicates to the jury that the police showed a mug shot photograph of defendant to a witness and thus prejudiced defendant by injecting evidence that defendant …

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.