Difference between revisions of "Carey v. Musladin"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(CONSERVAPEDIA IS A BIASED AND BIGOT ENCYCLOPEDIA. I, A MARTYR OF WIKIPEDIA, DECLARE WAR ON THIS PITIFUL COVEN OF RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS) |
(Undo revision 456352 by Special:Contributions/Environmentlove1REVERT VANDALISM) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | In '''''Carey v. Musladin''''', 127 S. Ct. 649 (2006), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] affirmed a state court ruling that buttons displaying a murder victim's image worn by the victim's family during respondent's trial did not deny respondent his right to a fair trial. | |
| + | |||
| + | Justice [[Clarence Thomas]], writing for the court, wrote that the state court's ruling was not contrary to clearly established federal law, and was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Court recognized that certain courtroom practices are so inherently prejudicial that they deprive the defendant of a fair trial. ''Estelle v. Williams'', 425 U.S. 501, 503-506 (1976); ''Holbrook v. Flynn'', 475 U.S. 560, 568 (1986). | ||
| + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 03:49, May 19, 2008
In Carey v. Musladin, 127 S. Ct. 649 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a state court ruling that buttons displaying a murder victim's image worn by the victim's family during respondent's trial did not deny respondent his right to a fair trial.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, wrote that the state court's ruling was not contrary to clearly established federal law, and was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
The Court recognized that certain courtroom practices are so inherently prejudicial that they deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503-506 (1976); Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568 (1986).