Rose v. Lee
- Decided
- May 24, 2001
- Docket
- 00-11, 00-12
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 7,425 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that the use of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard “was ‘contrary to’ the Strickland test because the State court applied the wrong burden of proof with respect to the prejudice prong” — Christopher Coleman v. Chadwick Dotson (2025)
- finding that when a state court decision is contrary 11 to clearly established federal law a federal habeas court has an obligation to review state court judgments de novo to determine whether issuance of a writ is warranted — Moore v. State of Maryland (2024)
- commenting “we do not believe that a federal habeas court can ‘remand’ a case to a state habeas court” — Harris v. Lewis (2023)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:
A North Carolina jury convicted John Hardy Rose of capital murder for the murder of Patricia Stewart. Following a capital sentencing proceeding, the jury recommended, and the trial court imposed, a sentence of death. After exhausting all available state remedies, Rose petitioned the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina for a writ of habeas corpus.
See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West Supp.2000). The district court ordered that the writ be granted on the ground that the State habeas court applied the wrong legal standard to Rose’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The remaining allegations in Rose’s habeas petition were dismissed.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676 (2001)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.