http://dbpedia.org/data/Carey_v._Musladin.atom 2025-01-07T21:37:04.531944Z http://dbpedia.org/resource/Carey_v._Musladin 2025-01-07T21:37:04.531944Z --10-11 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. 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 trial, wearing buttons that displayed the victim's image. 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. 70 Souter 172800.0 2006 549 1113121474 2006 Carey v. Musladin 8619367 --12-11 Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin Carey v. Musladin Thomas Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito Kennedy Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 25920.0 5 Stevens 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. 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 trial, wearing buttons that displayed the victim's image. Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin 7793 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.

  NODES