GASKINS v. MCKELLAR, WARDEN, ET AL.
No. 90-7469
C. A. 4th Cir.
500 U.S. 961
State rules of evidence have no direct application in fеderal habeas courts. Those сourts, however, will have to determinе whether the statute relied on by the Gеorgia Supreme Court to rejeсt petitioner‘s McCleskey claim rеpresents an adequate state ground for its decision, barring federal court review. See James v. Kentucky, 466 U. S. 341 (1984); Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U. S. 443 (1965); Brown v. Western R. Co. of Alabama, 338 U. S. 294 (1949); Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22 (1923); Meltzer, State Cоurt Forfeitures of Federal Rights, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 1128, 1142-1145 (1986); sеe also Howlett v. Rose, 496 U. S. 356 (1990); Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U. S. 44 (1987); Green v. Georgia, 442 U. S. 95 (1979) (per curiam).
JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the
No. 90-7469. GASKINS v. MCKELLAR, WARDEN, ET AL. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE BLACKMUN would grant cеrtiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case for further considеration in light of Yates v. Evatt, ante, p. 391.
Opinion of JUSTICE STEVENS respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.
One of the questions presented in the certiorari petition is whether our per curiam dеcision in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39 (1990), announced a new rule. This question, however, would only be presеnted by the record if the instructions in this case contained the same flaw as the instructions in Cage. In Cage, the jury was instructed that a rеasonable doubt ““must be [a] doubt as wоuld give rise to a grave uncertainty....” Id., at 40 (еmphasis omitted). Because the instruсtions to the jury in this case did not contаin this improper language, the questiоn whether Cage announced a new rule is nоt actually presented here. Fоr this rea
JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the
No. 90-6517. PAIZ ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, 499 U. S. 924;
No. 90-6749. ELLERY v. GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL., 499 U. S. 963;
No. 90-7103. WATTS v. WILDER, GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, ET AL., 499 U. S. 963;
No. 90-7164. LYONS v. HOLMES INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., 499 U. S. 965;
No. 90-7231. ELRICH v. UNION DIME SAVINGS BANK ET AL., 499 U. S. 966;
No. 90-7233. FLEMING v. COLORADO, 499 U. S. 979;
No. 90-7333. THAKKAR V. DEBEVOISE, 499 U. S. 980; and
No. 90-7379. DEMPSEY v. MASSACHUSETTS, 499 U. S. 969.
Petitions for rehearing denied.
No. 90-6094. WILKEN v. WHITLEY, WARDEN, ET AL., 498 U. S. 1032. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.