Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Do th is Court's precedents prohibiting the application of arbitrary rules to exclude evidence "clearly establish," under § 2254(d)(1) , that a state court's misapplication of a valid state rule can rise to a federal constitutional violation?
2. Do this Court's precedents, which generally have found that a defendant has a weighty interest in presenting " 'facts' about the alleged crime at hand," Scheffer, 523 U.S. at 316– 17 n.13, clearly establish that a defendant also has a weighty interest in presenting extrinsic credibility evidence unrelated to the facts of the underlying crime?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Do this Court's precedents prohibiting the application of arbitrary rules to exclude evidence 'clearly establish,' under § 2254(d)(1), that a state court's misapplication of a valid state rule can rise to a federal constitutional violation?
2026-02-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2026.
2026-02-17
Reply of Mike Brown, Warden submitted.
2026-02-17
Reply of petitioner Mike Brown, Warden filed. (Distributed)
2026-02-06
Brief of Louis Chandler in opposition submitted.
2026-02-04
Brief of respondent Louis Chandler in opposition filed.
2026-02-04
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Louis Chandler.
2026-01-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 9, 2026.
2026-01-05
Motion of Louis Chandler for an extension of time submitted.
2026-01-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 8, 2026 to February 9, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-12-09
Response Requested. (Due January 8, 2026)
2025-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-01
Waiver of right of respondent Louis Chandler to respond filed.
2025-10-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 1, 2025)