101990P.pdf   09/05/2014  Ray Dansby  v.  Ray Hobbs
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  10-1990
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Gruender, 
   Circuit Judge] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. Death Penalty Case. On remand from the Supreme 
   Court for further consideration in light of Trevion v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 
   1911 (2013). Dansby's proposed new evidence did not compel a conclusion 
   that he acted in lawful self-defense, and as this evidence failed to meet 
   the extraordinarily high threshold for proof of actual innocence, the 
   district court did not err in denying this claim; the evidence in the case 
   surpassed the constitutional threshold with room to spare, and the 
   district court properly rejected Dansby's due process claim based on 
   sufficiency of the evidence; the state courts' decision that the 
   prosecutor's comments were not an impermissible comment on Dansby's 
   exercise of his right to postarrest silence was not an unreasonable 
   application of Supreme Court precedents; the district court erred in 
   finding that Dansby had procedurally defaulted on his claim that the state 
   trial court had unconstitutionally precluded him from cross-examining a 
   witness and from introducing extrinsic evidence to expose his bias and 
   motive to fabricate, and this claim must be remanded for further 
   proceedings; when a district court chooses to address procedural default 
   on its own initiative, it must give the parties fair notice and an 
   opportunity to present their positions; here, the district court erred in 
   sua sponte raising procedural default regarding Dansby's Brady-Napue claim 
   without giving the parties such an opportunity, and the claim must be 
   remanded for further proceedings; court would not expand the certificate 
   of appealability to include an claim that the jury arbitrarily refused to 
   consider mitigating evidence; court would not expand the certificate to 
   include an issue regarding attorney conflict of interest; the court 
   expands the certificate to include, in whole or part, an additional 15 
   issues, and denies relief on each claim. Please see the opinion for 
   further details regarding these issues, which include claims regarding 
   voir dire, Batson issues, ineffective assistance of trial and direct 
   appeal counsel and trial error. 
  
101990P.pdf   06/21/2012  Ray Dansby  v.  Larry Norris
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  10-1990
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and
   Gruender, Circuit Judge]
   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.