Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Was It Objectively Unreasonable for the Washington Courts to Conclude that the Jury Did Not Misapply State Law?

0
Posted

Was It Objectively Unreasonable for the Washington Courts to Conclude that the Jury Did Not Misapply State Law?

0

Sarausad argues that the Washington Court of Appeals ignored compelling evidence that the jury was confused about the accomplice liability knowledge requirement, and was therefore objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established federal law. See Brief for Respondent at 31. On direct appeal, both Sarausad and Washington acknowledge that the Washington Court of Appeals erroneously stated that Sarausad did not need to know about the gun or potential shooting to be convicted as an accomplice to murder. See Brief for Respondent at 34; Brief for Petitioner at 16. Sarausad argues that during its second review, the Washington Court of Appeals should have found that the jury was reasonably likely to misinterpret the instructions the fact that Court of Appeals itself misinterpreted the knowledge requirement. See Brief for Respondent at 33–34. In addition, Washington and Sarausad disagree over the effect of the prosecution’s closing argument on the jury’s understanding of state

Related Questions

Thanksgiving questions

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.