Carey v. Musladin
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Carey v. Musladin?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
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.[1] 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 the trial, wearing buttons that displayed the victim's image.
Carey v. Musladin | |
---|---|
Argued October 11, 2006 Decided December 11, 2006 | |
Full case name | Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin |
Docket no. | 05-785 |
Citations | 549 U.S. 70 (more) 127 S. Ct. 649; 166 L. Ed. 2d 482; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 9587; 75 U.S.L.W. 4019; 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,315; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 23 |
Case history | |
Prior | Defendant convicted, Santa Clara County Superior Court (Nov. 1, 1995); conviction upheld, sub nom., People v. Musladin, No. H015159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997); petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (Cal. June 2, 2000); petition for writ of habeas corpus denied, No. CV-00-01998-JL (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2003); rev'd sub nom., Musladin v. LaMarque, 403 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.); rehearing denied, 427 F.3d 647 (9th Cir.); op. withdrawn and superseded, 427 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 547 U.S. 1069 (2006). |
Holding | |
State appellate court's determination that defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial when courtroom spectators wore buttons depicting murder victim was not "contrary to or unreasonable application of clearly established law." Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito |
Concurrence | Stevens |
Concurrence | Kennedy |
Concurrence | Souter |
Laws applied | |
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) |
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.