Talal B. Jammal v. John K. Van De Kamp, Attorney General of the State of California Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the improper admission of evidence violates due process when it renders the trial fundamentally unfair
• noting that “failure to comply with the state’s rules of evidence is neither a necessary nor 11 a sufficient basis for granting habeas relief.”
• stating that the federal 21 courts “are not a state supreme court of errors; we do not review questions of state evidence 22 law.”
• stating that the federal courts “are not a state supreme court of errors; we do not review 11 questions of state evidence law.”
• stating that the federal courts “are not a state supreme court of errors; we do not review 16 questions of state evidence law.”
• stating that “the issue for us, always, 5 || is whether the state proceedings satisfied due process; the presence or absence of a state law 6 || violation is largely beside the point”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).