Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-1088 Cullen v. Pinholster

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 4, 2011//

09-1088 Cullen v. Pinholster

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 4, 2011//

Listen to this article

United States Supreme Court
Habeas Corpus
Record on review

Review under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.

As amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), ß2254 sets several limits on a federal court’s power to grant habeas relief to a state prisoner. As relevant here, a claim that has been “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings,” “shall not be granted . . . unless the adjudication” “(1)resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or “(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” ß2254(d).

This “difficult to meet,” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. ___, ___, and “‘highly deferential standard’ . . . demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt,” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19, 24. Section 2254(d)(1)’s backward-looking language — “resulted in” and “involved” — requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is also limited to the record in existence at that same time — i.e., the state-court record. This understanding is compelled by “the broader context of the statute as a whole,” which demonstrates Congress’ intent to channel prisoners’ claims first to state courts. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 341.

It is also consistent with this Court’s precedents, which emphasize that ß2254(d)(1) review focuses on what a state court knew and did. See, e.g., Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U. S. 63, 71ñ72. Moreover, it is consistent with Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U. S. 465, 474, which explained that a federal habeas court is “not required to hold an evidentiary hearing” when the state-court record “precludes habeas relief” under ß2254(d)’s limitations.

The Ninth Circuit wrongly interpreted Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, and Holland v. Jackson, 542 U. S. 649, as supporting the contrary view.

590 F. 3d 651, reversed.
09-1088 Cullen v. Pinholster
Thomas, J.; Alito, J., concurring; Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part; Sotomayor, J., dissenting.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests