Patricia Ouska v. Lynn Cahill-Masching, 1

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 prosecutor’s questions regarding the defendant’s prearrest, pre-Miranda silence were improper because they were used to infer the defendant’s guilt
• concluding that the prosecutor’s questions regarding the defendant’s prearrest, pre-Miranda silence were improper because they were used to infer the defendant’s guilt
• noting that this court considers implicit requests to amend a certificate of appealability when a party briefs issues not specified in the certificate
• noting that petitioner has the burden to excuse default
• finding state appellate court’s decision that it was not ineffective assistance for defense counsel to fail to raise an argument that would not have changed the outcome at trial was not an unreasonable application of Strickland requiring habeas relief under § 2254
• when the court determines that the ex- pansion of the certificate of appealability is not war- ranted, the court is not required to and will not address arguments outside of those issues certified for appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).