Hall v. Vasbinder

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that claim of ineffective assistance of counsel used as “cause” to excuse the default of another claim is not reviewed under the deferential standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)
• stating, “[t]o the extent that any testimony and comments violated Michigan’s rules of evidence, such errors are not cognizable on federal habeas review”
• “To the extent that any testimony and comments violated Michigan’s rules of evidence, such errors are not cognizable on federal habeas review.”
• “In general, to merit habeas relief, the prosecutor’s conduct must be both improper and flagrant.”
• “An argument that ineffective assistance of counsel should excuse a procedural default is treated differently than a free-standing claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The latter must meet the higher AEDPA standard of review, while the former need not.”
• “An argument that ineffective assistance of counsel should excuse a procedural default is treated differently than a free-standing claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The latter must meet the higher AEDPA standard of review, while the former need not.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).