Padilla v. Klimpel

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the trial judge’s response “directing [the jury’s] attention to the precise paragraph” of the jury instructions was entirely appropriate because the instructions were “constitutionally adequate instruction” and “answer[ed] its inquiry”
• holding that even if the jury instruction was ambiguous, the state courts reasonably concluded, after reviewing the trial record, that the jury’s conviction was not based on the incorrect understanding of the law that the defendant said the instruction had conveyed
• “The reasoning of the [Ninth Circuit] Court of Appeals ... failed to review the state courts’ resolution of this question through the deferential lens of AEDPA[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).