YOKELY v. Hedgepeth

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting habeas claim where petitioner claimed that reference at retrial to his “appeal” indicated to the jury that he had been convicted at the first trial, but “it was not clear that the jury even understood what” the witness was referring to when he mentioned an “appeal”
• rejecting habeas claim where petitioner claimed that reference at retrial to his “appeal” indicated to the jury that he had been convicted at the first trial, but “it was not clear that the jury even understood what” the witness was referring to when he mentioned an “appeal”
• “[A]ny potential prejudice to Petitioner was cured by the trial court’s striking the testimony and instructing the jury to disregard it.”
• “[A]ny potential prejudice to Petitioner was cured by the trial court’s striking the testimony and instructing the jury to disregard it.”
• “[A]ny possible error in the jury hearing a few fleeting references to a prior trial or a lineup was harmless given the strong evidence at trial of Petitioner’s guilt through the eyewitness testimony of [the prosecution’s two key witnesses].”
• “[A]ny possible error in the jury hearing a few fleeting references to a prior trial or a lineup was harmless given the strong evidence at trial of Petitioner’s guilt through the eyewitness testimony of [the prosecution’s two key witnesses].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).