On Point: 22. Habeas corpus

Issues: (1) Whether it is appropriate under § 2254 for a federal court to conclude that a state court’s rejection of a claim was unreasonable in light of facts that an applicant could have but never alleged in state court; and (2) what standard of review is applicable to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Docket: 09-1088

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

(Links,

Holland v. Florida, USSC No. 09-5327, 6/14/10

Habeas – Filing Deadline – Equitable Tolling, Generally

The 1-year limitations period for filing an 18 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition is subject to “equitable tolling”:

We have not decided whether AEDPA’s statutory limitations period may be tolled for equitable reasons. … Now, like all 11 Courts of Appeals that have considered the question, we hold that §2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases.

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Issues as Defined by Certificate of Appealability

Holmes’s failure to brief on appeal the merits of his constitutional claims did not waive them, because the order granting certificate of appealability “invited the parties only to brief the [threshold] procedural issue” of whether the claims had been defaulted in state court.

Even were the government correct that the certificate of appealability is defective for failure to require the parties to brief the constitutional issues,

United States Supreme Court per curiam decision

Habeas Review

Petitioner Lawrence Jefferson, who has been sentenced to death, claimed in both state and federal courts that his lawyers were constitutionally inadequate because they failed to investigate a traumatic head injury that he suffered as a child.  The state court rejected that claim after making a finding that the attorneys were advised by an expert that such investigation was unnecessary.

Question Presented:

Whether a state court sentence-reduction motion consisting of a plea for leniency constitutes an “application for State post-conviction or other collateral review,” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), thus tolling the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year limitations period for a state prisoner to file a federal habeas corpus petition.

• Opinion below (1st Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

Principal impetus for review seems to be (per usual) a split of authority,

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas Review – Exculpatory Evidence
Statements of three eyewitnesses, not disclosed to the defendant, that would have implicated the state’s principal eyewitness and otherwise impeached his credibility and that of 2 other state’s witnesses was “material.” It is reasonably probable that disclosure would have netted a different result, and the state court’s contrary conclusion unreasonably applied clearly established law.

The court stresses,

Renico v. Lett, USSC No. 09-338, 5/3/10

The state court’s conclusion of manifest necessity for mistrial where the foreperson reported inability to reach unanimity wasn’t unreasonable, hence grant of habeas relief is vacated:

… (T)rial judges may declare a mistrial “whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity” for doing so. Id., at 580. The decision to declare a mistrial is left to the “sound discretion” of the judge,

7th circuit decision; on appeal after remand, Eric D. Holmes v. Buss, 506 F.3d 576 (7th Cir 2007)

Competency of Petitioner, While Pursuing Habeas Relief

Given that petitioner is clearly incompetent (“He is deeply confused, obsessed, and delusional”) court orders habeas proceeding suspended until state shows his condition sufficiently improved.

This is a death penalty case, and the decision in the prior appeal indicated that it had “found no noncapital case in which such a claim (petitioner’s incompetency,

Berghuis v. Smith, USSC No. 08-1402, 3/30/10

Defendants have Sixth Amendment right to impartial jury drawn from fair cross section of community. To establish prima facie violation of this “fair-cross-section,” requirement, a defendant must prove that: (1) a group qualifying as “distinctive” (2) is not fairly and reasonably represented in jury venires, and (3) “systematic exclusion” in the jury-selection process accounts for the underrepresentation. Various methods have been proposed to test underrepresentation,

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Extraneous Juror Influence
1. Where both defendant and homicide victim were African-American, in-court proclamation from latter’s mother that “the situation is racist” is deemed to be “ambiguous and apparently innocuous.” It follows that counsel’s failure to pursue the matter was reasonable.

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (unauthorized extraneous contact with juror creates presumption of prejudice and thus requires hearing),