ADVERTISEMENT
Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> U.S. Supreme Court Blog
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Federal Judiciary
: U.S. Supreme Court BlogCarey v. Musladin: Absence of Clear Binding Precedent to Allow Habeas
By Paul M. Rashkind
ADVERTISEMENTS
Carey v. Musladin, 127 S. Ct. 649 (2006). Federal court granted habeas relief in a state first degree murder case because the courtroom spectators included three family members of the victim who wore buttons depicting the deceased family of murder victim. State courts had denied relief on this ground, but the Ninth Circuit concluded that the state court determination was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), because there is no Supreme Court precedent clearly establishing that an unfair trial occurs, or habeas should be granted, when spectators wear such buttons.Full post as published by U.S. Supreme Court Blog on December 11, 2006 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Clear
Verified Identity Pass Face Class Action
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

The Chinese Like Us. They Really Really Like Us.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus, The Writ of Amparo, dan The Writ of Habeas Data
Case o' The Week: Ninth Salehs Forth with Bad Miranda Decision
CA1: no habeas in dual-theory case







