Gill v. Mecusker

How courts have described this case

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

• holding state court’s adjudication of Faretta claim entitled to deference because invocation of right to self-representation was equivocal and the petitioner’s conduct suggested a waiver of his Faretta rights
• holding state court’s adjudication of Faretta claim entitled to deference because invocation of right to self- representation was equivocal and the petitioner’s conduct indicated a waiver of his Faretta rights
• examining whether a summary state appellate decision was entitled to AEDPA deference even though the trial court’s ruling was “based on potentially flawed reasoning”
• focusing on the “state court’s ultimate conclusion” instead of “the reasoning that led to th[at] result”
• explaining that the defendant’s vacillation made his request for self-representation equivocal
• questioning whether the state court’s ultimate determination rests on a sufficient factual basis apart from erroneous factual finding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).