The following excerpt is from Bonilla v. Ylst, 15 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1994):
We review de novo the decision whether to grant or deny a petition for habeas corpus. Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir.1991). " 'To the extent it is necessary to review findings of fact, the clearly erroneous standard applies.' " Id. (citations omitted).
The standard that the district court must apply, and that we now apply, to determine whether habeas relief should be granted in any given case, is whether the alleged errors " 'had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury verdict.' " Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1716 (1993) (citations to quoted case omitted). To apply this standard, the reviewing court must "make a de novo examination of the trial record." Id. at 1724. The court must decide that any error that occurred at trial " 'did not influence the jury' " and that " 'the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.' " Id. (citations to quoted case omitted).
1. 14th Amendment Due Process and In-Court Identification
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.