Oscar Thomas v. Marc Clements

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the failure to present affirmative expert testi- mony that the autopsy results were not inconsistent with the defendant’s statement constituted prejudice
• stressing that there is “no evidence in the decision that it applied the proper standard”
• declining to apply § 2254(d) deference to a claim addressed by the state trial court but not addressed by the state appellate court
• finding prejudice where it was “substantially likely that [petitioner] could have raised at least a reasonable doubt and had a different outcome at trial”
• finding prejudice where it was “substantially likely that [petitioner] could have raised at least a reasonable doubt and had a different outcome at trial”
• proceeding to de novo merits review where state court decision unreasonably applied clearly established law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).