In re: Apperson, No. 11-3031 (10th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendants William L. Pickard and Clyde Apperson were convicted of drug-related crimes in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. An important witness for the prosecution was informant Gordon Todd Skinner, a criminal associate of Defendants. After the convictions were affirmed on appeal, Defendants filed motions for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 claiming, among other things, that the prosecution had violated their rights under "Brady v. Maryland",(373 U.S. 83 (1963)), and "Giglio v. United States", (405 U.S. 150 (1972)), by suppressing evidence of Skinner's criminal and informant background. The district court rejected the claims. Defendants applied for certificates of appealability (COAs) to appeal the district court's decision, but we denied their applications. They also filed district-court motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the court's judgment in the Section 2255 proceedings, raising multiple claims. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendants' claims of "Brady/Giglio" violations at trial were second-or-successive claims; and because Defendants did not establish the requisites for authorizing a second-or-successive claim, the Court denied authorization. On the other hand, Defendants' claims that prosecutorial misconduct in the Section 2255 proceedings affected the integrity of those proceedings are proper Rule 60(b) claims; and the Court remanded those claims to the district court for resolution.
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.