Wolfe v. Clarke, No. 11-6 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
This matter was previously before the Fourth Circuit on appeal. Petitioner Justin Michael Wolfe, a Virginia prisoner, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the Commonwealth in 2002. By its decision in 2009, the Court remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, "Wolfe I" instructed the district court to determine whether Petitioner was entitled to an evidentiary hearing and other discovery; to decide in the first instance whether, under "Schlup v. Delo," (513 U.S. 298 (1995)), Petitioner had made a sufficient showing of actual innocence to clear any procedural bars to his constitutional claims; and to assess Petitioner claim, among others, that the prosecution had contravened his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as recognized in "Brady v. Maryland," (373 U.S. 83 (1963)), by suppressing favorable and material evidence. On remand, the district court heeded the Fourth Circuit's "Wolfe I" mandate, authorized appropriate discovery and conducted an evidentiary hearing, and ruled in Petitioner's favor on the Schlup issue and his Brady and two additional claims. The court vacated Petitioner's capital murder and other convictions, and ordered the Commonwealth to either retry him within 120 days or release him unconditionally from custody. The judgment was stayed pending this appeal by the Commonwealth, which was initiated on its behalf by Respondent Harold Clarke, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections. The Commonwealth challenged the remand proceedings from start to finish, contending that the district court erred in its procedural and substantive rulings. Because the Fourth Circuit concluded that the court's award of habeas corpus relief on Petitioner's Brady claim was not made in error, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 21, 2012.
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.