Coleman v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Third Circuit “failed to afford due respect to the role of the jury and the state courts of Pennsylvania”
• holding that habeas petitioner entitled to relief only where 14 jury’s factual “finding was so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare 15 rationality”
• concluding that an inference from circumstantial evidence is reasonable so long as it is not “so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare rationality.”
• observing that the Jackson inquiry asks only whether the jury’s finding “was so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare rationality”
• explaining that such challenges “face a high bar ,,. because they are subject to two layers of judicial deference”
• explaining that insufficient-evidence claims “face a high bar in federal habeas proceedings because they are subject to two layers of judicial deference[:]” (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).