Vasquez v. Jones, No. 04-2274 (6th Cir. 6/24/07) in footnote 7 finds the Michigan Court of Appeals was too perfunctory in its discussion of why it thought the trial court's exclusion of evidence was harmless. I am not sure a more detailed analysis by the state court would have made any difference in the ultimate outcome, but this case perhaps points out that if the state wants to take advantage of an opportunity to decide the issue for itself its appellate judges should fully explain their conclusion. Maybe this has implications for how the issue must be handled in briefs as well.