US Supreme Court Docket
Smith v. Spisak
Criminal Law, Habeas Corpus
1. Did the Sixth Circuit contravene the directives of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") and Carey v. Musladin, 127 S. Ct. 649 (2006), when it applied Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), to resolve in a habeas petitioner's favor questions that were not decided or addressed in Mills?2. Did the Sixth Circuit exceed its authority under AEDPA when it applied United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), to presume that a habeas petitioner suffered prejudice from several allegedly deficient statements made by his trial counsel during closing argument instead of deferring to the Ohio Supreme Court's reasonable rejection of the claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
- Docket Sheet from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Benjamin C. Mizer
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
Michael J. Benza
Chagrin Falls, OH
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader