Wainwright v. Hutchins

holding that the petitioner fulfilled the exhaustion requirement with respect to his confrontation clause claim, even though he did not use the phrase “confrontation clause” | holding that the petitioner fulfilled the exhaustion requirement with respect to his confrontation clause claim, even though he did not use the phrase "confrontation clause" | concluding that a police officer’s testimony as to what an anonymous source told him about a crime, combined with the prosecutor’s reference to it in closing argument, violated the defendant’s confrontation rights | noting that “it is not required that the petitioner present book and verse on the federal constitution” | heinousness supported by victim’s painful death by stabbing; “[she] lingered, unable to breathe and aware of what was happening to her” | issue “obliquely stated” on direct appeal not defaulted if state court was alerted to constitutional issue | state court claim that the prosecution obtained an unfair advantage by introducing into evidence out-of-court statements of unidentified informant and then relying on those statements as evidence of petitioner’s guilt effectively apprised state court of confrontation clause issue | White, J. dissenting from denial of writ of certiorari where case provided opportunity to address “the evident confusion among lower courts concerning the application of the Ex Post Facto clause to changes in the rules of evidence and procedure”