Dansby v. Norris, No. 10-1990 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseRay Dansby was convicted by a jury in Arkansas on two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death. The district court denied Dansby's application for a writ of habeas corpus. Dansby appealed on five claims covered by a certificate of appealability and asked the Eighth Circuit to expand the certificate with respect to four other claims. The Eighth Circuit (1) affirmed the district court's rejection of three of Dansby's claims; (2) vacated the dismissal of two claims in Dansby's second amended petition, holding (a) the district court erred in determining that Dansby failed to present a Sixth Amendment claim to the Arkansas Supreme Court, and (b) the district court's dismissal of Dansby's Brady-Napue claim on the ground it was procedurally defaulted was improper, as the parties were not afforded adequate notice and opportunity to be heard on the issue of procedural default; (3) denied the applications to expand the certificate; and (4) remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas. Proffered evidence did not meet the extraordinarily high threshold that might support the grant of habeas relief based on a showing of actual innocence; evidence at trial was sufficient to support Dansby's convictions for capital murder; it was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent for the Arkansas court to conclude that police officer testimony that Dansby declined to speak further was merely an explanation of the circumstances of Dansby's interview and not an unconstitutional comment on his exercise of his right to remain silent; district court erred in concluding that Dansby's Sixth Amendment claim was procedurally defaulted as the issue raised in his Supreme Court brief was sufficient to give the court notice that he raised a federal constitutional claim; parties had not been given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard on the issue of procedural default with respect to a claim under Brady and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959); court would not expand the certificate of appealability. Case remanded for further proceedings on the two claims identified.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.