On Point blog, page 23 of 31
Greene v. Fisher, USSC No. 10-637, cert granted 4/4/11
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?
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”?
Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation
Gordon Sussman v. Jenkins, 7th Cir No. 09-3940, 4/1/11
7th circuit decision, granting habeas relief in State v. Sussman, 2007AP687-CR; in chambers opinion on stay
Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation
The state court unreasonably restricted Sussman’s cross-examination of his chief accuser, and thus violated his right to confrontation, by precluding him from inquiring into the complainant’s prior false allegations of sexual misconduct.
Andre Brown v. Rednour, 7th Cir No. 10-1116, 3/25/11
Habeas Review – Inadmissible Evidence – Harmless Error
Error in jury exposure, during deliberations, to inadmissible police report deemed harmless where the report contained merely cumulative information, the trial court gave a curative instruction, and the evidence against Brown was overwhelming.
The standard on direct appeal for measuring reversible error is the familiar Chapman test, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Maples v. Thomas, USSC No. 10-63, Cert Granted 3/21/11
Decision below (11th Cir No. 07-15187, 10/26/09)
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
Whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that there was no “cause” to excuse any procedural default where petitioner was blameless for the default, the state’s own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner’s attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his agents at the time of any default.
After Maples lost his direct appeal in (Alabama) state court,
Habeas Review, Batson Issue: Must Give Deference to State Court Determination
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;
Habeas – Tolling Provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)
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,
Habeas – Procedural Default – Applicable to “Discretionary” Postconviction Deadline
Walker v. Charles W. Martin, USSC No. 09-996, 2/23/11
State court time limit for seeking postconviction relief needn’t be “fixed,” but instead may be discretionary in nature, for purposes of the habeas default rule.
In a recent decision, Beard v. Kindler, 558 U. S. ___ (2009), this Court clarified that a state procedural bar may count as an adequate and independent ground for denying a federal habeas petition even if the state court had discretion to reach the merits despite the default.
Stephen Toliver v. McCaughtry, E.D. Wis. No. 02-C-1123
district court decision, granting habeas relief on review of unpublished Wis COA opinion (2000AP-2460-CR); on remand from Toliver v. McCaughtry, 539 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.2008)
for Toliver: Brian P. Mullins; Toliver BiC; Wis. Resp.; Reply
Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance
Counsel performed deficiently in failing to call two potential witnesses who would have supported Toliver’s theory of defense that,
Richard M. Fischer v. Van Hollen, 741 F. Supp. 2d 944, 960 (E.D. Wis. 2011)
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,
Habeas – Challenge to Release Date – Sentence Credit
State ex rel. Christopher L. Shelton v. Smith, 2010AP719, District 2, 1/26/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity; State Resp.
Shelton was sentenced on two pre-TIS counts: an active (indeterminate) prison sentence on one count and a consecutive term of probation on the other. He served out the first sentence, with the prison indisputably holding him 143 days past his release date.