SCOTT BEHNKE AND JOANNE BEHNKE v. U. S. BANK, N. A.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that jurors’ preconceived notions or beliefs about the legal system constitute internal influences
• explaining that a defendant is entitled to a new trial where extraneous information is presented to the jury that prejudiced the defendant
• explaining that the habeas court may not “reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses” (citing Brown, 567 F.3d at 205)
• explaining that the habeas court may not “reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses” (citing Brown, 567 F.3d at 205)
• explaining that there was “no external influence where a jury decided to sentence a defendant to death after discussing a news account of a different defendant who had committed murder after being paroled”
• explaining that “[t]he trial court ‘must hold a Remmer hearing ‘to afford the defendant an opportunity to establish actual bias” and later stating that “a defendant must show actual prejudice to be entitled to a new trial[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).