| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Carey v. Musladin ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Carey v. Musladin
''Carey v. Musladin'', 549 U.S. 70 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standard for when a federal court can grant ''habeas corpus'' relief to overturn a criminal conviction based on the state court's misapplication of established federal law. At issue was whether a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when relatives of the alleged victim were permitted to sit in the courtroom as spectators during trial, wearing buttons that displayed the victim's image.
The Supreme Court ruled that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it upheld the conviction. The Court's prior rulings on when courtroom practices prejudiced the right to a fair trial were limited to state-sponsored conduct, and had consequently left it an open question regarding the conduct of spectators.
== Background ==
In 1994 Mathew Musladin shot and killed Tom Studer. Musladin admitted to killing Studer during the trial, but claimed he did so in self-defense. The jury rejected Musladin's self-defense claim and convicted him of murder. During the trial, members of Studer's family sat in the front row of the gallery wearing buttons with pictures of Studer. Musladin's attorney objected to the buttons, but the trial court refused to order the buttons removed, saying it saw "no possible prejudice to the defendant." Musladin appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
Musladin then filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, which the court denied. The Ninth Circuit appeals court reversed, finding that the state court's decision on the buttons was in violation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, () because it "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law" (quoting the statutory law). The federal law in question was a test for inherent prejudice established by the Supreme Court in ''Estelle v. Williams'' (425 U.S. 501 ) (1976) and ''Holbrook v. Flynn'' (475 U.S. 560 ) (1986). The test indicated prejudice against the defendant must be justified by an essential "state" interest. The appeals court found the test was applicable to behavior by private spectators and that the decision to permit the buttons unfairly prejudiced the defendant. The state appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Carey v. Musladin」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|