Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Matthews v. Workman, No. 07-6209

By FindLaw Staff on July 07, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a capital habeas matter, the denial of Petitioner's petition is affirmed, where 1) an allegedly improper juror communication did not prejudice Petitioner, because the defense made no appeal to residual doubt in the penalty phase; and 2) the prosecutor did not reference any extra-record evidence in his argument.

Read Matthews v. Workman, No. 07-6209

Appellate Information

Filed July 7, 2009


Opinion by Judge Gorsuch


For Appellant:

Timothy R. Payne, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, OK

For Appellee:

Seth S. Branham, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard