Lindh v. Murphy

accepting certiorari on the question of whether § 107(c) of AEDPA fails to specify the extent to which § 2254(d | granting certiorari to review Seventh Circuit's holding that amendments in question are retroactive, Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856 (7th Cir.1996) (en banc) | granting certiorari to review Seventh Circuit's holding that amendments in question are retroactive, Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856 (7th Cir.1996) (en banc) | coneluding that the amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 apply retrospectively | suggesting in dicta that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the reprosecution of a defendant who has bribed a judge and been acquitted | accepting certiorari on the question of whether § 107(c) of AEDPA fails to specify the extent to which § 2254(d | accepting -11- certiorari on the question of whether § 107(c) of AEDPA fails to specify the extent to which § 2254(d | accepting certiorari on the question of whether § 107(c) of AEDPA fails to specify the extent to which § 2254(d | on the question of whether § 107(e) fails to specify the extent to which § 2254(d) is to apply retroactively to pending habeas petitions, and, if so, whether the court correctly determined that the “habeas-curtailing statutes apply retroactively” | Act’s amendments codified at section 2254(d) apply to pending cases | determining whether Act’s standard of review provisions apply retroactively | no Confrontation Clause right at sentencing