Richard Bugh v. Betty Mitchell, Warden

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that habeas relief was unwarranted “even if the prior acts testimony was admitted in violation of [state] law”
• noting that “[t]here is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent which holds that a state violates due process by permitting propensity evidence in the form of other bad acts evidence”
• “‘Errors in application of state law, especially with regard to the admissibility of evidence, are usually not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.’”
• “the admission of prior bad acts evidence was not contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent.”
• “When an evidentiary ruling is so egregious that it results in a denial of fundamental fairness, it may violate due process and thus warrant habeas relief.”
• “When an evidentiary ruling is so egregious that it results in a denial of fundamental fairness, it may violate due process and thus warrant habeas relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).