discussed Cited "see" Vasquez v. Senkowski (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g." See Rollins v. Leonardo, 938 F.2d 380, 382 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam) (approving district court’s application of harmless error analysis to Miranda violation), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1062 , 112 S.Ct. 944 , 117 L.Ed.2d 114 (1992); see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306-12 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying harmless error analysis even to coerced confession).

cited Cited "see, e.g." Richter v. Artuz See Harris, 489 U.S. at 263 ; see also Rollins v. Leonardo, 938 F.2d 380, 381 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1062 , 112 S.Ct. 944 , 117 L.Ed.2d 114 (1992).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Colson v. Mitchell The Supreme Court has stated that a procedural default bars consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review only when the “last state court rendering a judgment in the case ‘clearly and expressly’ states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.” Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 , 109 S.Ct. 1038, 1043 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989) (citing Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 327 , 105 S.Ct. 2633, 2638-39 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) (quoting Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 , 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3476 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983))); see also Rollins v. Leonar *970 do, …

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Player v. Berry In Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 , 109 S.Ct. 1038 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989), the Supreme Court declared that “a procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ‘clearly and expressly’ states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.” Id. at 263 , 109 S.Ct. at 1043 (quoting Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 327 , 105 S.Ct. 2633, 2638-39 , 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985)); see also Rollins v. Leonardo, 938 F.2d 380, 381 (2d Cir.1991) (citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S.…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Russo v. Mann See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 , 109 S.Ct. 1038, 1043 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989) (citation omitted); see also Rollins v. Leonardo, 938 F.2d 380, 381 (2d Cir.1991) (citation omitted), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 944 , 117 L.Ed.2d 114 (1992).