DiBenedetto v. Hall

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that de novo review applies when “the state court has not decided the federal constitutional claim (even by reference to state court decisions dealing with federal constitutional issues)”
• finding that the AEDPA does not apply where the state court has not decided the federal constitutional issue
• discussing evidence at second trial: “The sneakers showed no visible signs of blood, itself surprising given the number of times the victims were shot at close range”
• “it is difficult to imagine the sneaker evidence played much of a role in the jury’s determination”
• sneaker with blood spot destroyed; no constitutional violation where test results existed and defendant free to cross-examine expert who conducted test
• when “state court has addressed the federal constitutional issue, it is its ultimate outcome, and not its rationalization, which is the focus”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).