Jeffrey Lee Atwater v. James v. Crosby, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an evidentiary hearing is not required unless petitioner can demonstrate that factual allegations, if proven, would show entitlement to relief
• holding that a counsel’s errors at trial failed to prejudice the defendant since there was “overwhelming evidence of [his] guilt”
• holding that petitioner “did not properly exhaust [] claim in state court” because he “asserted the issue” for the first time “in his reply brief”
• concluding that the trial court’s application of Batson was reasonable where the trial court “touched” on Batson’s third step by agreeing with the prosecutor’s characterization of a juror’s voir dire response
• concluding that an 1 The parties refer to Petitioner as Mr. Mellard. See generally (ECF Nos. 1, 25). The underlying state court, however, refers to Petitioner as Mr. Mellad. See generally (ECF Nos. 26, 27
• finding failure to meet the exhaustion requirement would result in the claims being procedurally barred, resulting in a procedural default for federal habeas purposes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).