cited Cited "see" Benge v. Johnson See DePew v. Anderson, 311 F.3d 742, 749 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 270 , 157 L.Ed.2d 160 (2003), and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 83 , 157 L.Ed.2d 250 (2003).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gary Bradford Cone v. Ricky Bell, Warden (2×) The Supreme Court elaborated on this standard to some extent in O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 , 115 S.Ct. 992 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995), by explaining: “When a -federal judge in a habeas proceeding is in grave doubt about whether a trial error of federal law had substantial and injurious effect.or influence in determining the jury’s verdict, that error is not harmless.” Id. at 436 , 115 S.Ct. 992 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also DePew v. Anderson, 311 F.3d 742, 751 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 270 , 157 L.Ed.2d 160 (2003), and cert. denied, — U.…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cone v. Bell The Supreme Court review” doctrine, but it is a matter of Tennessee, not federal, elaborated on this standard to some extent in O’Neal v. law, and we know of no other way to read and understand McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995), by explaining: “When a what the Tennessee Supreme Court said in West. federal judge in a habeas proceeding is in grave doubt about whether a trial error of federal law had substantial and V. injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict, that error is not harmless.” Id. at 436 (internal quotation We must now consider whether the jury’s erroneous…