On Point: 4. Procedure

Cullen v. Scott Lynn Pinholster, USSC No. 09-1088, 4/4/11

We first consider the scope of the record for a §2254(d)(1) inquiry. The State argues that review is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Pinholster contends that evidence presented to the federal habeas court may also be considered. We agree with the State.

…

We now hold that review under §2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Certificate of Appealability

We pause briefly to note the district court’s error in denying a certificate of appealability in this case. The statute provides that a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,

William Kerr v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-1032, 3/28/11 – Part III

7th circuit decision, on habeas review of summary orders in 2001AP168 (§ 809.30 appeal) and 2003AP2332 (§ 974.06 appeal)

Due to the nature of the issues and length of discussion, this case will be canvassed in multiple posts. Part I (IAC – adequate provocation defense) is here; Part II (default; standard of review),

7th circuit decision, on habeas review of summary orders in 2001AP168 (§ 809.30 appeal) and 2003AP2332 (§ 974.06 appeal)

Due to the nature of the issues and length of discussion, this case will be canvassed in multiple posts. Part I (IAC – adequate provocation defense) is here; Part III (evidentiary hearing, GP advice), here.

Habeas – Procedural Fault

Kerr’s pro se § 974.06 motion asserted ineffective assistance of counsel as a ground for relief.

Docket

Decision below (3rd Cir No. 07-2163, 5/28/10)

Question Presented (by Scotusblog):

For purposes of adjudicating a state prisoner’s petition for federal habeas relief, what is the temporal cutoff for whether a decision from this Court qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

Cert petition

Here’s the pitch Greene successfully made:

This case presents a fundamental question of federal habeas procedure in the post-AEDPA world: What is the temporal cutoff for when decisions from this Court count as “clearly established Federal law”?

Felkner v. Steven Frank Jackson, USSC No. 10-797, 3/31/11

On habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court of appeals failed to give sufficient deference to the state court determination that the prosecutor had race-neutral reasons for striking 2 of 3 black prospective jurors.

The prosecutor struck one juror because she had an MSW, and the prosecutor didn’t like having social workers on the jury;

Wall v. Kahlil Kholi, USSC No. 09-868, 3/7/11

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim” tolls the 1-year limitation period for filing a federal habeas petition. 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2). The question in this case is whether a motion to reduce sentence under Rhode Island law tolls the limitation period,

district court decision, denying respondent’s motion to amend judgment granting habeas relief (post on original grant, here).

Habeas – State’s Waiver

The State’s failure to raise certain arguments, prior to grant of 2254 relief, waived its right to press those points on a Rule 59 motion to amend the judgment granting relief.

The respondent in this case, like in most petitions for a writ of habeas corpus,

7th circuit decision; habeas review of State v. Martin, No. 06AP2413

Habeas – Filing Deadline – SVP

Martin’s habeas challenge to denial of his ch. 980 petition for discharge isn’t time-barred by the fact he could have raised the same challenge to his original commitment. Discharge typically requires a new determination of whether the SVP’s condition has “changed,” but Martin’s discharge litigation instead turned on an “exceptional”

seventh circuit decision; denying rehearing and amending panel decision, Coleman v. Hardy (per curiam , 2/7/11)

Habeas – Defaulted Claim – Assertion of Innocence

Although Coleman defaulted his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it in state court, his allegation of actual innocence supports a “gateway” evidentiary hearing to determine whether to reach the merits of the defaulted claim.

Default may be excused if the petitioner can show 1) “cause”