Dan Epps

Bad way to say it. But you're right. That makes what they mean. So then the majority, and especially Justice Barrett, are helped by this old precedent, Michigan versus Long, which says when it's confusing what the state court is doing, we will assume that they are using some federal law.

There's a sort of presumption in favor of jurisdiction and a presumption against an adequate and independent state ground when they're kind of blurred together and mixed.

There's a sort of presumption in favor of jurisdiction and a presumption against an adequate and independent state ground when they're kind of blurred together and mixed.

Yes. And often in those cases, they will clearly state, we find this to violate both the federal constitution and the state constitution. But they are not clear on whether the state constitution is what we say interpreted in lockstep with the federal constitution or whether it has independent force.

Yes. And often in those cases, they will clearly state, we find this to violate both the federal constitution and the state constitution. But they are not clear on whether the state constitution is what we say interpreted in lockstep with the federal constitution or whether it has independent force.

So would the state constitutional violation finding still be true if our federal constitutional finding were not true? In some ways, the Michigan versus Long itself is less confusing than this opinion, which is just very confusing.

So would the state constitutional violation finding still be true if our federal constitutional finding were not true? In some ways, the Michigan versus Long itself is less confusing than this opinion, which is just very confusing.

And so I think then that lets the majority of the spirit kind of at that point bail out and say, look, at a minimum, it's confusing. And therefore, it's at least plausible that the lower court ruled that this claim was incorrect as a matter of federal law, and therefore we can review it. Do you agree with that? I basically come out, I mean, I think it's going to surprise nobody.

And so I think then that lets the majority of the spirit kind of at that point bail out and say, look, at a minimum, it's confusing. And therefore, it's at least plausible that the lower court ruled that this claim was incorrect as a matter of federal law, and therefore we can review it. Do you agree with that? I basically come out, I mean, I think it's going to surprise nobody.

I basically come out with just as Barrett came out on that. I do think the more natural, I guess I'll say two things. The more natural reading to me was we are rejecting this confession of error in part because we disagree with other merits and part because that is a sensible rule about confessions of error. So that was what I read them to do.

I basically come out with just as Barrett came out on that. I do think the more natural, I guess I'll say two things. The more natural reading to me was we are rejecting this confession of error in part because we disagree with other merits and part because that is a sensible rule about confessions of error. So that was what I read them to do.

And my experience with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which is 20 years old or so, 18 years old, not quite as old as Glossop's experience with them.

And my experience with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which is 20 years old or so, 18 years old, not quite as old as Glossop's experience with them.

in which some of these puzzles occurred and my experience was that it was frequently the case that the oklahoma court of criminal appeals as procedural rulings were intertwined with merits determinations okay like they would have these thresholds to get an evidentiary hearing and at first it looked like a state law standard but we dug into it it would turn out that there was some again kind of sensible like merits gut check as part of this right like

in which some of these puzzles occurred and my experience was that it was frequently the case that the oklahoma court of criminal appeals as procedural rulings were intertwined with merits determinations okay like they would have these thresholds to get an evidentiary hearing and at first it looked like a state law standard but we dug into it it would turn out that there was some again kind of sensible like merits gut check as part of this right like

You want a late hearing. And if you have a really good argument, they'll let you have one. And if not, not. Yeah. So it would not surprise me if that's going on here.

You want a late hearing. And if you have a really good argument, they'll let you have one. And if not, not. Yeah. So it would not surprise me if that's going on here.

That's the threshold issue.

That's the threshold issue.

Yeah. And I don't really understand NAPU for the reasons I already sort of established. I don't quite understand the prosecutor's duties here, and I don't quite agree with the extra record evidence, but I guess it's been pretty straightforward. On the record, they have, once you get through the procedural violations, given the precedents, the merits seem pretty straightforward.