Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit violated the backward-looking nature of Section 2254(d) of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the clear
mandates announced by the Supreme Court in Sexton v.
Beaudreaux, Cullen v. Pinholster, and
Harrington v. Richter when
it considered — and based its ultimate decision upon —
an argument the respondent, Alonzo Cortez Johnson, never made to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.