holding that state court's determination that interrogation was non — coercive, where suspect was interrogated over 5 — hour period in 6 by 8 foot room without water or toilet (but never requested water or use of a toilet), was objectively reasonable application of Schneckloth
Summary of this case from Manzo v. NewlandNo. 03-368.
October 20, 2003.
C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
holding that state court's determination that interrogation was non — coercive, where suspect was interrogated over 5 — hour period in 6 by 8 foot room without water or toilet (but never requested water or use of a toilet), was objectively reasonable application of Schneckloth
Summary of this case from Manzo v. NewlandFull title:PRESSLEY v. BENNETT, SUPERINTENDENT, ELMIRA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 20, 2003
Id. at 412. But circuit law may be persuasive authority for purposes of determining whether a State court…
Willard v. AlameidaThe AEDPA mandates a "highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings," Lindh v. Murphy, 521…