Illinois law, that without evidence of an injury, the question of voluntariness boiled down to a head-to-head credibility contest between Mr. Hinton and the State’s witnesses, and that the new evidence would be inadmissible because Mr. Hinton had no evidence of a physical injury. R. at C-426. I cannot review questions of Illinois law here. Robertson v. Hanks, 140 F.3d 707, 712 (7th Cir.1998). 10 . The Seventh Circuit has expressed doubt about, but has not resolved, whether the Brecht standard survived the passage of the AEDPA in 1996, or whether a stricter standard applies post-AEDPA. See Denny v. Gudmanson, 252 F.3d 896, 905 n. 4 (7th Cir.2001); see also Whitehead v. Cowan, 263 ixon’s testimony should be excluded on that basis, so he has waived any such argument here. See id. at 528 (<HOLDING>) 12 . The spelling also appears as "Randall” in
holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged holding that for an initial civil commitment the state has the burden of proof holding that  direct evidence is evidence showing a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action  holding that plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum holding that defendant has initial burden to establish link between fourth amendment violation and challenged evidence