sever their trials. In his motion, Schneider argued that he

would suffer prejudice by being tried with Dehmer because

she planned to offer a coercion defense that would involve

evidence that Schneider beat Dehmer and that he was part of

the Aryan Brotherhood. The trial judge denied the motions.

At trial, Dehmer introduced evidence that Schneider had

beaten her and, on two occasions, mentioned Schneider’s

affiliation with the Aryan Warriors or Aryan Brotherhood. On

the first occasion, Dehmer testified that she could not escape from Schneider because she would have been labeled a snitch, and that Aryan Warriors kill snitches. Schneider did not object to this testimony. Later, while cross-examining Dehmer, Schneider’s attorney suggested that Dehmer’s belief that Schneider had his friends watching her was the result of a heroin-induced psychosis. Dehmer responded, “It’s a little circle of Aryan Brotherhood.” Schneider requested that the comment be stricken. The trial judge agreed that the comment was non-responsive, struck it from the record, and admonished the jury to disregard it.

On October 23, 2008, the district court granted in part and

denied in part a motion to dismiss the First Amended Petition.

In its order, the district court held that Schneider’s original petition was timely because Schneider was entitled to equitable tolling of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one-year statute of limitations for the time period of September 4, 1997, through November 20, 2005. The district court concluded that Schneider’s “mental health conditions constituted extraordinary circumstances standing in the way of his filing a timely federal petition, such that he likely would have been unable to file a timely federal petition due to those circumstances.” Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order at 4 (Oct. 23, 2008). Nevertheless, the district

court held that Grounds 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the amended petition were untimely because they did not relate back to the original petition, and were, therefore, filed outside the limitations period. The district court also held that, while timely, Grounds 2 and 7 of the amended petition were barred by Schneider’s procedural default. That is, while Schneider’s mental health condition could excuse his failure to file a federal petition within AEDPA’s one-year limitations period, it did not constitute cause to excuse his failure to comply with state procedures. On July 9, 2009, the district court denied Ground 1 of Schneider’s amended petition on the merits

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1916364&forum_id=2#20393650)

s_s_m only knows how to copy-paste; i don't think there's ever any comprehension.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1916364&forum_id=2#20395124)