Lies v. Jackson

100 F. App'x 378
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 24, 2004
DocketNo. 03-1224
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 F. App'x 378 (Lies v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lies v. Jackson, 100 F. App'x 378 (6th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Lies petitioned for habeas corpus relief from his state court conviction claiming (1) the state violated his Confrontation Clause rights and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his petition. We affirm.

Before oral argument, we asked the parties to brief whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Crawford v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), abrogating Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), applies to Lies’s case. After considering the parties’ letter briefs, and in light of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s mandate that this court review Lies’s claims under the clearly established Supreme Court precedent as of the time of the relevant state-court decision, we conclude Crawford does not apply.

Oral argument, the parties’ briefs, and our study of both the appellate record and the applicable law convince this court that the district court correctly decided to deny Lies’s petition. Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated in that court’s Opinion and Order denying the petition. We do not consider Lies’s cumulative error claim because he failed to raise it in state court or the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coy v. Renico
414 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. Michigan, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 F. App'x 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lies-v-jackson-ca6-2004.