Supreme Court Decisions


Court drops a bombshell in Martinez v. Ryan

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 No Comments by Nancy King

In a 7:2 decision today, the Court in Martinez v. Ryan held that ineffective assistance of counsel during state post conviction proceedings can be cause for excusing procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The Court originally agreed to consider whether a prisoner who claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial has a constitutional right to an effective attorney in “collateral” (post-appeal) proceedings in state court in
order to raise that claim for the first time.  But today it didn’t answer that question.   Rather than addressing the constitutional question about the scope of the right to counsel, it answered an “equitable” question about the scope of federal habeas corpus review. Read more »

Greene v. Fisher: law when state court decides is what matters

Tuesday, November 8, 2011 Comments Off by Nancy King

Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Court, reminded us today in Greene that

the purpose of AEDPA is to ensure that federal habeas relief functions as a “‘guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,’” and not as a means of error correction.

(quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 12–13) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 332,  n.5 (1979) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment)).

Relying upon Pinholster, where the Court held that under Section 2254(d) federal courts could not disrupt state court decisions based on evidence that the state court didn’t have, the Court in Greene today held that federal courts must measure the decision of the state court against the federal law that was in place at the time the state court announced its decision.  Federal judges reviewing a state court decision under Section 2254(d) may not consider Supreme Court precedent that appeared only after that state court decision.   Read more »

Martinez v. Ryan – is there right to counsel in state pcr for IAC claim?

Monday, June 6, 2011 1 Comment by Nancy King
 

In Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-1001, the Supreme Court today agreed to consider the following question:  ”Does a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first post-conviction proceeding, have a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of first post-conviction counsel specifically with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim?” 

The Ninth Circuit panel, in Martinez v. Schriro, 623 F.3d. 731 (2010), explained the procedings before the petitioner filed his habeas petition in federal court: Read more »

Controversy over mitigation -3rd Circuit sets aside Mumia Abu-Jamal’s death sentence; Supreme Court reverses 6th Circuit in Bobby v. Mitts

Monday, May 2, 2011 Comments Off by Joseph Hoffmann

Within the past week, decisions were rendered in two prominent death penalty habeas corpus cases involving challenges to jury instructions and verdict forms dealing with mitigating evidence and mitigating factors:  the Mumia Abu-Jamal case in Pennsylvania and the Harry Mitts case in Ohio.  The two decisions seem unlikely to settle the controversy over mitigation that has existed ever since the Supreme Court’s ruling Mills v. Maryland (1988). Read more »

Beyond Cullen v. Pinholster: When new evidence amounts to a “new claim”

Thursday, April 14, 2011 1 Comment by Nancy King

The fact-intensive dispute in the recent decision in Cullen v. Pinholster over the application of Strickland to capital sentencing representation breaks little new ground.  The decision is consistent with the Court’s view that “‘[s]urmounting Strickland’s high bar is never an easy task.’” Richter.  The more interesting aspects of the decision involve its consequences for evidentiary hearings and innocence claims by 2254 petitioners.  Read more »

Skinner v. Switzer – Much Ado About (Next to) Nothing?

Thursday, April 14, 2011 No Comments by Joseph Hoffmann

Henry Skinner was convicted and sentenced to death by a Texas jury in 1995 for murdering his girlfriend and her two sons at a house they shared with Skinner.  Skinner admitted that he was present when the murders occurred, but claimed that he was drunk and high on codeine, and could not have been the killer.  Instead, Skinner claimed, the real killer was the girlfriend’s uncle, an ex-con with a history of physical and sexual abuse.

After being sent to death row, Skinner sought to have additional DNA tests performed on previously untested biological evidence collected from the crime scene, hoping to prove his innocence.  Requests made under Texas state law in 2001 and 2007 were denied.  Skinner then filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, asking the federal courts to find Texas’ denial of his request for additional DNA tests to violate his constitutional right to due process.  The federal district court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that habeas corpus, and not §1983, was the only proper way to raise such a claim of access to DNA tests that might overturn a criminal conviction; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

On March 7, 2010, in Skinner v. Switzer, the U.S. Supreme Court handed Hank Skinner a legal victory.  It’s not obvious that the win will prove to be worth very much, however, because the Court also made perfectly clear that – even though Skinner will now be allowed to pursue his §1983 lawsuit in the lower federal courts – there’s very little chance that he will prevail in the end. Read more »

Harrington v. Richter: The Court is Ready for More Prudent Use of Habeas, is Congress?

Thursday, April 14, 2011 No Comments by Nancy King

In Harrington v. Richter, the Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision finding unreasonable the state court’s rejection of Richter’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  Along the way, the Court (with Justice Ginsberg concurring in the judgment and Justice Kagan not participating) had plenty to say about the future of habeas corpus review. 

1)  More habeas review is not always better.  

“The writ of habeas corpus stands as a safeguard against imprisonment of those held in violation of the law. Judges must be vigilant and independent in reviewing petitions for the writ, a commitment that entails substantial judicial resources. Those resources are diminished and misspent, however, and confidence in the writ and the law it vindicates undermined, if there is judicial disregard for the sound and established principles that inform its proper issuance.”

As this ringing introduction by Justice Kennedy recognizes, failure to exercise prudence in using the writ is corrosive and harmful.  The resources of the federal courts are not infinite Read more »