Cargle v. Mullin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that AEDPA's standard of review does not apply when new issues are considered on federal habeas review
• holding that AEDPA does not apply to cumulative error analysis when no state court has considered all the material considered by federal courts
• holding that AEDPA does not apply to cumulative error analysis when no state court has considered all the material considered by federal courts
• holding that AEDPA’s standard of review does not apply when new issues are considered on federal habeas review
• concluding that the AEDPA standard of review did not apply because the state court applied a legal standard different than the standard required for analysis of the federal claim
• concluding that prosecutor’s argument was -42- inappropriate in that it “suggest[ed] that jurors are part of the team of the prosecution and police, rather than impartial arbiters between the State and the defendant” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).