Skip to main content
LIRA@BC Law

Abstract

On November 13, 2013, in Childers v. Floyd, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that Wyon Childers had failed to rebut the presumption that his Confrontation Clause claim was adjudicated on the merits. In this case, and a previous decision that led to it, the court conducted its habeas corpus review using a highly-deferential and vague conception of the threshold “adjudicated on the merits” inquiry. This Comment argues that the Eleventh Circuit and other circuits should reexamine their standards for determining whether federal claims have been adjudicated on the merits by state courts in order to align themselves with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence and to provide a more accurate and just standard to the federal district courts.

Files

File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
12_skall_A1b.pdf
8 Sep 2022
Public
362 kB

Metrics

Metadata

  • Subject
    • Criminal Law

    • Criminal Procedure

    • Evidence

  • Journal title
    • Boston College Law Review

  • Volume
    • 56

  • Issue
    • 6

  • Pagination
    • E. Supp. 164

  • Date submitted

    8 September 2022