Zeigler v. Crosby

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that petitioner did not exhaust fair trial claim because he did not cite federal cases or constitutional provisions in state court
• concluding that the habeas petitioner failed to “present fairly to the state court the federal constitutional question” where the petitioner ‘“‘ma[d]e no mention of the United States Constitution and cite[d] no federal cases” to the state court
• explaining that the defendant had to show a reasonable probability that, had a motion to dismiss the indictment been filed, it would have been granted
• explaining that the defendant had to show a reasonable probability that, had a motion to dismiss the indictment been filed, it would have been granted
• stating that the mere assertion that a defendant “was denied due process and a fair trial” is “insufficient to present” a federal claim because “this language could just be asserting a fair trial claim under the Florida Constitution and Florida’s Due Process Clause”
• “A claim is also procedurally defaulted if the petitioner fails to raise the claim in state court and ‘it is clear from state law that any future attempts at exhaustion would be futile.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).