State v. Golga

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that in a habeas case, the district court makes “no credibility determination or other apparent finding of fact” when its decision is based on the transcript of the petitioner’s state-court trial (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that in determining whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s for-cause challenges, this Court had to ask whether a juror’s protestations of impartiality could be believed, and whether the juror swore that she could decide the case on the evidence
• granting postconviction relief and reversing murder conviction due to presence of biased jurors because \[f]ailure to remove biased jurors taints the entire trial\
• finding abuse of discretion where district judge accepted a juror’s assertion of impartiality when the juror had a close relationship with the victim’s family and had spoken to the victim’s family about the crime
• “In the absence of an affirmative and believable statement that [individual] jurors could set aside their opinions and decide the case on the evidence and in accordance with the law, the failure to dismiss them was unreasonable.” (emphasis added)
• \A court's refusal to excuse a juror will not be upheld `simply because the court ultimately elicits from the prospective juror a promise that he will be fair and impartial . . . .'\ (quoting Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 61 F.3d 147, 156 (3d Cir. 1995)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).