Several
Important Cases are Pending!
Last Updated:
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the following cases involving habeas corpus issues:
Walker v. Martin, 09-996 (cert granted 06/21/10)
(case below: 08-15752 (9th Cir.) (unpublished))
Questions presented:
Under state law in California, a prisoner may be barred from collaterally attacking his conviction when the
prisoner "substantially delayed" filing his habeas petition. In federal habeas corpus proceedings, is such a
state law "inadequate" to support a procedural bar because (1) the federal court believes that the rule is vague
and (2) that state failed to prove that its courts "consistently" exercised their discretion when applying the
rule in other cases?
Click here to view the warden's certiorari petition.
Cullen v. Pinholster, 09-1088 (cert. granted 06/14/10)
(Case below: 590 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. en banc))
Questions presented:
(1) Whether a federal court may reject a state court adjudication of a petitioner’s claim as “unreasonable” under
28 U.S.C. § 2254, and thus grant habeas corpus relief, based on a factual predicate for the claim that the
petitioner could have presented to the state court but did not; (2) Whether a federal court may grant relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 on a claim that trial counsel in a capital case ineffectively failed to produce mitigating
evidence of organic brain damage and a difficult childhood because counsel, who consulted with a psychiatrist who
disclaimed any such diagnosis, as well as with petitioner and his mother, did not seek out a different psychiatrist
and different family members.
Click here to view the warden's merits brief.
Skinner v. Switzer, 09-9000 (cert. granted May 24, 2010)
(case below: 2010 WL 338018 (5th Cir.)
Questions presented:
May a convicted prisoner seeking access to biological evidence for DNA testing assert that claim in a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or is such a claim cognizable only in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Click here to view Skinner's certiorari petition.
Click here to view the respondent's brief in opposition.
Click here to view Skinner's reply.
Wall v. Kholi, 09-868 (cert. granted May 17, 2010)
(case below: 582 F.3d 147 (1st Circuit))
Questions presented:
Does a state court sentence-reduction motion consisting of a plea for leniency constitute 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, an issue as to which there is a 3-2 circuit split?
Belleque v. Moore, 09-658 (cert. granted March 22, 2010)
(case below: 574 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.)
Questions presented:
(1) This Court established in Hill v. Lockhart the standard for assessing, in a collateral challenge to a
conviction that was based on a guilty or no-contest plea, whether an attorney's deficient performance requires
reversal of a conviction. In Arizona v. Fulminante - a direct appellate review case - this Court reviewed all the
evidence presented at trial and held that the erroneous admission of a coerced confession at the trial was not
harmless. (a) If a collateral challenge is based on a defense attorney's decision not to move to suppress a
confession prior to a guilty or no contest plea, does the Fulminante standard apply, even though no record of a
trial is available for review? (b) Even if the Fulminante standard applies in that context, is it "clearly
established Federal law" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)? (2) In Moore's underlying criminal case, he
confessed to police that he personally shot the victim. He also confessed to two other people, and he ultimately
pleaded no contest to murder. In this collateral challenge to his conviction, he alleged that his attorney should
have moved to suppress the confession to police, but he offered no evidence that he would have insisted on going to
trial had counsel done so. Did the Ninth Circuit err by granting federal habeas relief on Moore's
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim?
Click here to view the superintendent's merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief by South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of the superintendent.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of the superintendent.
Argument will be heard on October 12, 2010.
Harrington v. Richter, 09-587 (cert. granted Feb. 22, 2010)
(case below: 578 F.3d 944 (9th Cir.) (en banc)
Questions presented:
(1) In granting habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, did the Ninth Ciruit deny the state court judgment the
deference mandated by 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d) and impermissibly enlarge the Sixth Amendment right to effective
counsel by elevating the value of expert-opinion testimony in a manner that would virtually always require defense
counsel to produce such testimony rather than allowing him to rely instead on cross-examination or other methods
designed to create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt; and (2) Does AEDPA deference apply to a state
court's summary disposition of a claim, including a claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
The second question was added by the Court.
Click here to view the warden's merits brief.
Click here to view Richter's merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakaota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of the warden.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of the warden.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Richter.
Click here to view the amicus brief of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers in support of Richter.
Click here to view the amicus brief of Law Professors and Legal Scholars in support of Richter.
Argument will be heard on October 12, 2010.
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the following cases which involve constitutional issues of interest to capital litigators:
--->