In the case of Ibarra v. Thaler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155988 the court were the court find error in the application of the law the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is further as well addressing evidence rule 405 the order of that Petitioner's application for federal writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. It is further as well the ordered that Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. It is further any motions not previously ruled upon by the Court are DENIED. The court found that originally rule of was not applied having considered the findings and conclusions set forth above and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. ยง 2253, the Courts finds, sua sponte, that a certificate of appealability…show more content… (Ingham County Cir. Ct. Aug. 11, 2005). Petitioner filed applications for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. Both state appellate courts denied leave to appeal. People v. Raymond, No. 267814 (Mich. Ct. App. July 27, 2006); People v. Raymond, 477 Mich. 944, 723 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Nov. 29, 2006). Final the court state court's determination [14] that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. , 131 S. Ct. 770, 789, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011), (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S. Ct. 2140, 158 L. Ed. 2d 938 (2004). "Section 2254(d) reflects the view that habeas corpus is a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded…show more content… The evidence that should have been struck in and not allowed into the record was allowed Attorney did not do his due diligence to disallow or prohibit evidence from being allowed to hearsay evidence was allowed in to record you should have not been. Witnesses were asked the State of Mind of the individual defendants and should have not been entered at all these are all prejudicial evidentiary rules that are not allowed into the court record and it had a did his job properly should have been prohibited Disallowed. The jury had limited instructions but based the jury made Decisions on what evidence that they should have stripped from their decision. They made their decisions based on Logical deduction that some of the evidence was probably improbable to have actually occurred And not factual. The decision was basically based on whether or not that was Reasonable Doubt That the defendant could have stabbed his father not that there was no Reasonable Doubt and without they found him not guilty.In the cases above I have learned a number of cases where Rules of Evidence have actually follow through like in the case of Raymond v. Scutt, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123588 were the rule Federal evidence was followed. Unlike in the case of Ibarra v. Thaler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155988 were the Federal Rules of Evidence for not follow And other errors were found within the
