Grass v. Reitz, No. 13-1569 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, an insanity acquitee committed to the custody of the Missouri Department of Mental Health, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, challenging the denial of his state-court application for unconditional release. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the district court did not exceed the scope of the court's mandate by considering the Warren County Circuit Court's 2011 findings and decisions. The court concluded that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that the circuit court's implicit finding of current mental illness is correct. Petitioner also failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of the Warrant County Circuit Court's express finding that he currently presented a danger to others. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Court Description: Prisoner case - Habeas. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Grass v. Reitz, 643 F.3d 579 (8th Cir. 2011). The district court did not exceed the scope of this court's mandate by considering a 2011 state court decision in Grass's case as this court's prior opinion invited the district court to consider the decision on remand and the decision bore on the issue of whether Grass's continued confinement violated his due process rights; Grass's only remaining avenue for habeas relief is to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record does not support the state court's finding that he suffers from current mental illness or current dangerousness; Grass has failed to meet this burden and failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of the state court's express finding that he currently presents a danger to others.
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.