Bader v. Warden, NH State, No. 03-1374 (1st Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 25, 2007.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 05-2587 SETH BADER, Petitioner, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON, Respondent, Appellee. ERRATA The opinion of this court issued on May 25, 2007, should be amended as follows: On page 8, lines 9-12, change the first sentence to read: "In federal habeas proceedings directed to state prisoners, the federal statute provides that findings by the state court are entitled to substantial deference. 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254(d)(2), (e)(1) (2000)." Following this sentence, a footnote should be added with the following text: Bader argues that we need not pay any deference to the state court's factual finding that no leniency-fortestimony agreement existed because that finding was not rendered in the context of an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Bryan v. Mullin, 335 F.3d 1207, 1216 (10th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 975 (2004). Bryan's nodeference rationale is inconsistent with the plain language of sections 2254(d) and (e), which require our deference to all state court factfinding which is not "unreasonable." See Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 239 (3d Cir. 2004). On page 11, lines 1-6, change the first two sentences to read: "In all events, Seth does not have sufficient evidence of an actual agreement, made between the prosecutors and defense counsel, by which Joseph would testify in exchange for leniency. Absent evidence that, if accepted, could overcome the deference due to the state-court finding, there is nothing to be tried in an evidentiary hearing." On page 12, lines 25-27, replace the final sentence on the page with "This was hardly evidence that the state finding was wrong."
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.
