Jason Ray v. State of Arkansas

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that evidence of organic brain damage may undermine mitigation arguments by suggesting that the defendant is dangerous and will remain a threat to others
• noting that § 2254(d)(2) only applies to historical facts
• finding counsel’s failure to introduce evidence of the defendant’s organic brain damage did not prejudice him because it highlighted his violent nature and portrayed him as a “continuing threat”
• finding it “unnecessary” to address the first Strickland prong, even though the OCCA resolved the ineffective-assistance claim on that ground, because “applying a de novo standard of review” the applicant could not satisfy the second Strickland prong
• finding no prejudice in part because the defendant’s “inability to regulate behavior or inhibit impulses” supported the jury’s finding of the aggravating factor “that he represented a continuing threat, even if confined in prison for life” (quotations omitted)
• denying habeas relief, under a de novo standard of review, on claim that state court erred in excluding expert testimony stating certain child witnesses were not credible because credibility of another person is inappropriate subject for expert opinion testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).