Fourth Circuit· 2/11/2011

Bauberger v. Haynes

Citations

632 F.3d 100
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2643
2011 WL 477510

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that after the jury read extraneous dictionary definitions it “still needed an additional four hours before reaching a decision”
holding that dictionary definition of “malice” that jury improperly reviewed during deliberations did not warrant habeas relief because it “fully conveyed the essence of North Carolina Recommendation. Hurst did cite this case in his reply to Respondent’s post-hearing brief (Doc. 108 at 4 & n.3
discussing factor used in Judge King’s and Judge Gregory’s sepa rate opinions in McNeill that originated in Mayhue
holding no actual prejudice arose when the jurors consulted a dictionary to define several words used in the jury instructions because the definitions “fully conveyed the essence of North Carolina law” and did not materially affect the standard
upholding conviction despite jurors’ use of extraneous dictionary without evidence of ill intent
“Because of the threat collateral attacks pose to ‘finality, comity, and federalism,’ habeas petitioners may secure the writ only if the error ‘actually] prejudice^]’ them.” (internal citations omitted and alterations in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Keith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

52 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Bauberger v. Haynes

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.