Charles v. Thaler

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that pre-trial motions in limine “were not feasible because counsel could not have anticipated [inadmissible] testimony”
• stating that “federal court lacks authority to rule that a state court incorrectly interpreted its own law”
• explaining that there is “no constitutional rule that counsel must make, or not overlook, every possible objection to unfavorable testimony”
• “A federal court lacks authority to rule that a state court incorrectly interpreted its own law.”
• “Because the state determined that [the law-enforcement officer’s] testimony was permissible lay opinion under state evidentiary law notwithstanding his comment on [the officer’s] attitude, a federal habeas court may not conclude otherwise.”
• “We defer to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s determination of state law. It is not our function as a federal appellate court in a habeas proceeding to review a state’s interpretation of its own law.” (quoting Schaetzle v. Cockrell, 343 F.3d 440, 448-49 (5th Cir.2003)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).