Mason v. Allen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to reverse a conviction in light of a Confrontation Clause violation, the □ petitioner must show “prejudice”
• “When, however, a claim is properly presented to the state court, but the state court does not adjudicate it on the merits, we review de novo.”
• “[T]o properly exhaust a claim, the petitioner must fairly present every issue raised in his federal petition to the state’s highest court, either on direct appeal or on collateral review.” (cleaned up)
• Confrontation Clause violation found harmless where admitted hearsay statements made to police by CI was cumulative of others corroborating evidence, including petitioner’s post-arrest confession to murder and murder weapon found in his car
• “Exhaustion requires that ‘state prisoners . . . give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate 2 review process.’”
• “That is, to properly exhaust a claim, the petitioner must fairly present every issue raised in his federal petition to the state’s highest court, either on direct appeal or on collateral review.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).