Jay D. Scott, Petitioner-Appellee v. Betty Mitchell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a state court’s discussion of an alternative ground did not undermine actual enforcement of the state procedural ground
• concluding that the trial court’s general cautionary instruction regarding witness testimony sufficed to protect the defendant’s rights
• observing that Supreme Court has rejected argument that claim’s futility on the merits excuses failure to raise claim in state court
• noting that, in addition to seeking relief pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.21, the petitioner “also pursued post-conviction relief pursuant to State v. Murnahan” (emphasis added)
• noting that we must presume that curative instructions were effective “unless there is an ‘overwhelming probability’ that they were ignored” (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208 (1987))
• recognizing Ohio’s contemporaneous objection rule as an adequate and independent state ground

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).