MINAYA

v.

NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By

• Kordenbrock v. Scroggy, 919 F.2d 1091 (6th Cir. 1990)
  …actor also required unanimity. In reviewing this claim, I first note that errors of instruction are not reviewable in a habeas proceeding unless they work to deprive appellant of due process. Long v. Smith, 663 F. 2d 18 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1024, 102 S.Ct. 1724, 72 L.Ed.2d 143 (1982). The standard for determining this is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process,’ ” not merely whether it is erroneous. Hender…
• Kordenbrock v. Scroggy, 889 F.2d 69 (6th Cir. 1989)
  …ctor also required unanimity. In reviewing this claim, we first note that errors of instruction are not reviewable in a habeas proceeding unless they work to deprive appellant of due process. Long v. Smith, 663 F. 2d 18 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1024, 102 S.Ct. 1724, 72 L.Ed.2d 143 (1982). The standard for determining this is “whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process,” not merely whether it is erroneous. Henderson…
• O'Guin v. Foltz, 715 F.2d 397 (6th Cir. 1983)
  …estion is whether such an error rendered the trial so fundamentally unfair as to deny the defendant due process of law. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 97 S.Ct. 1730, 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1977); Long v. Smith, 663 F. 2d 18 (6th Cir.1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 1024, 102 S.Ct. 1724, 72 L.Ed.2d 143 (1982). Keeping in mind that “[a]n omission, or an incomplete instruction, is less likely to be prejudicial than a misstatement of the law,” Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. at 155, 97 S.Ct. at 1737, we find that the tr…