Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Herbert Smulls v. Donald Roper

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided November 1, 2006No. 05-2456Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHansen, Circuit Judge

While the court recites the proper standard for reviewing the state court proceedings, in my view it fails to adhere to that standard, and I therefore respectfully dissent from the court’s disposition of the Batson claim. I concur in the court’s disposition of Smulls’ ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

It bears repeating that a federal court “shall not ... grant[ ]” an application for a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in state custody unless the State courts’ adjudication of the prisoner’s claim:(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Miller-El v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  2. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Wainwright v. WittSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Sumner v. MataSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Miller-El v. DretkeSupreme Court of the United States · 2005

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API