Fran Sinistaj v. Sherry Burt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a state court’s abuse of discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a waiver of a jury trial is not a per se violation of the federal Constitution
• explaining that the state forfeited Teague because it did not raise the defense in the district court even though it later raised it in a motion to amend the district court's judgment
• denying analogous habeas claim because petitioner’s jury waiver did not specify that it applied only to a trial before a particular named judge
• denying analogous habeas claim because petitioner’s jury waiver did not specify that only a particular named judge could preside
• finding no authority for the proposition that “when a state court abuses its discretion in denying a defendant’s motion to withdraw a previously filed waiver of jury trial, the result is a violation of the United States Constitution.”
• denying analogous due-process claim because petitioner’s jury waiver stated that he agreed to be tried by “a judge of the . . . Court” and, therefore, did not specify that it applied only to a trial before a particular named judge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).