Glen Hughie Lovin, Jr. v. Joe M. Allbaugh, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections
DueProcess HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure
Whether the trial court erred in admitting prejudicial evidence of the defendant's prior criminal history, resulting in an unfair trial and requiring a new trial
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED TL. A) Coarse of proceedings Iu He recon KASEY Case before. this Court On Seotember 8, 3014, Pethirer bled a BE USC. eh tion tha in @ hi Ai ah Pp cothiny BE dace lee Pie aed be Sick TT Gorn Lmpry sin of am irrevels PS 14 vid Donon shaking Ye “ore dichion of! hiethomnplaetamine deprived My. Kourn of a fair triel, reguiving a nes trial Mor tevorable utoditeation(A Ground 8: The prejudice ot inaproper~ debils of My, kovins legal history inag yopriately jatroduced to Phe jury Yrvuch The. See oxlibits resulted si ast ETE Y Ch Le can Mode 4 4 2 é ANS Grapes Leda te kacl f tg gare Mohit ee peri dig bielry gopyt at Te AS 15.0, $ ARS ; Creenee heretofore as olead intel fe LL. The laut of Agpecls Eved By Delermining Det: Pl torrerd TAC claim Di Wet Meet The Stendyrds Set fort, QUESTIONS) PRESENTED Komw7?-I for velicf that samc nhs § AA5H Feito AS Greun ds fective because ot lit oe hone constitutionally mer potion Hi Hed — ic pele a poet Fs in is il following a wif ! s DE Errors whieh The Wiel Cawt failed ty ak Tomary ie. ie " Wy) Tj eci fi cain foal at ig re ie Ui methrounphe tyinine ramuite arr "seks cond loake.” Haynis_y. é ie Manta uring Precess as fer Dunsble vSoihe, 139 By C230, 13 Pd 49S} corcad eR Maas 4 Ah Giada, Bice video cen hehe Laitling the Wshingtter Sate ound unduly ig rejudicial frees: Water Was misleading 3B Luns err or the Dichit Abynes | Degen he, rately olodd oe Tnvestige ror, Jesh g 2. A : 1a/. evidence Gol ered “4 it alerted Poe a Lb Liason of ry Neve cori fo sheen thal the Defeeclant, 3) Bode Lid ee one Ed ae in sport ot the fesed’ suttrsieat, orelthle evid OM7 ne dal alle: el 4 raged en: e Hy evidence 6.) The jupys ects J Tn the Vocboomaher, ‘aif ogcured add dete You Oe % Phe Fhe and evi 13, old. ry Tnal crrducted gy ieee 7 , QUESTZOD(S) PRESHITED [emr'd The Gia / Court erred in advitting prior eany/hims. which were tro old for Coranicernber? tuder A) OS. 851.1 A Te sects inpoced is excessive. fn regards ty W ) [he Si 2 ‘ s/ye. 1 Yega Tes Soper engas torte the Ln aldttin ty Phe abo, Feb tier oloserved by Trial Cause rich we betel belwo, Ye aperie: ors 1) lhy didit tel timers Wiel Counsel, Dertorve cee Asad research and iompeach the District Abe: Lys Thvestigator, Bela Daeg (Sher witess) ~ when of ary Prat, leader Ons of the Bort, he contradicted his Pre licunary Hearing 1G; lien whith was alse wuder Gal of Phe Court eheve Yhis it LE TURY “and abla bard 9VOSS MiSs Cart) age jUsTICe» A Ge ie Aa te eo roe f& “ , 2. ET fle Sule opti, de Oy he There wns "0" autdis—fage recording eellor vite Jape. tape recording of the queshinaing of the Defected? 3) Trial Counsel's perernares uns sebyar in velehing te his experrenice aS arn (SS; ter Dishict Atbrne tor Garvin Coustly Pals, Vally ) Ohabovna.. This is park df inch ce cosichaee ot counsel udlyfel absolutely vuseels He Aun (A) prow test of Stichlaad vliadiretor Vie. U6. lf (994). 4) Twal feus erred. '‘n uot devtrasztlin ov subuij Us an oral marion ra di'smiasal charges Vormace Sh. “LL faite Yo prase “ALA” el | hot He, crime. chavoed ) alladiyy Ye Trial Sule to prepurhicly abou We, irre verdil witha being ntormed of Phis MUS CALVI 4g €. Hiushiee. QUESTZOUIS) PRESERTED = [cwr’d.?] Claim ot TAC js 0 d by the two (2) Yorn t ect set forth by Hai's Couivts proce cha? sy Shieklourd ve Wasliington, Hol U.S. ldo (1484). Fbittmer adequately arqued om bis ProSe collitere| ag ap Ha thes ef oneas in the tried earks aed Comin @ 1b vol WaT be cadriped. op er teil or tome) jer shee errors, Insléad are op Mt tei v1) tepte BP ses nl nts cond die tr Bc el DIESE Ted foc! mernteed I. Etihmer asserted Yat the lower cour Te erred in attining the denial of Patitioners 34ASY ketton lore The Dshret Lear failed to corrduel art EERE MARE (with Pet forer preset, resolve Hrs fachial dispute, 28 U.s.C. £2355 (2000) (Ste 2.9., Farrtatne v. Leathe Shy, MUS, PB, AIS @ 13): C'reversing Sunarary aspnissal and reserasdln yor heaving Decause nection and the tiles and records pf Ye Case