Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was passed by the 107th Congress “to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” To accomplish this goal, some of the AEDPA provisions include increasing penalties for crimes involving explosives or terroris
Must federal courts defer to the decisions of state courts on a constitutional claim when a criminal defendant attacks a state court decision in a federal court with a claim backed by evidence that was not developed in state court?
Petitioner Edward Bell claims that he is entitled to habeas relief from his death sentence for the murder of a police officer because his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was violated. Bell’s court-appointed attorneys did not introduce mitigating evidence to show that he did not pose a threat of future violent acts. Bell sought habeas relief in the Supreme Court of Virginia, which denied both an evidentiary hearing and habeas relief. Upon Bell’s petition for habeas corpus at the federal level, the district court granted an evidentiary hearing and held that Bell’s counsel acted unreasonably but that Bell was not prejudiced by this action. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that § 2254(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) required deference to Virginia’s summary rejection of Bell’s ineffective assistance claim, even though certain evidence supporting Bell’s claim was introduced for the first time in his federal habeas proceeding. This case could clarify the boundaries of deference toward claims “adjudicated on the merits” under the AEDPA.
Petitioner asserted ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and the district court found that he had diligently attempted to develop and present the factual basis of this claim in state court, on habeas, but that the state court’s fact-finding procedures were inadequate to afford a full and fair hearing. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found deficient performance but no prejudice and denied relief. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The question presented is:
Did the Fourth Circuit err when, in conflict with decisions of the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, it applied the deferential standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), which is reserved for claims “adjudicated on the merits” in state court, to evaluate a claim predicated on evidence of prejudice the state court refused to consider and that was properly received for the first time in a federal evidentiary hearing?
On October 29, 1999 in Winchester, Virginia, Sergeant Ricky Timbrook and two probation officers encountered Petitioner Edward Bell and another man while searching for a wanted parolee. See Bell v. Kelly, No. 06-22 at 10 (4th Cir. Jan.
Whether the Sixth Circuit's definition of "acquittal" conflicts with the Supreme Court's prior decisions defining "acquittal" under AEDPA, whether relitigation to determine if a death-sentenced inmate is mentally retarded violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, and whether the Sixth Circuit violated the AEDPA when it applied the Double Jeopardy Clause's collateral estoppel argument to prevent relitigation, even if that issue might not have been necessary to the court's decision in that case.
Respondent Michael Bies was convicted of kidnapping, murder and attempted rape of a ten-year-old boy in 1992. Despite expert testimony indicating that he was functionally mentally retarded, a jury recommended and judge delivered a death sentence. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized that Bies was mentally retarded, but held that the aggravating circumstances of the crime outweighed the mitigating factor of his mental retardation. However, in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court held that execution of mentally retarded individuals violated the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Bies argues that in light of this, his death sentence should be commuted since the Ohio Supreme Court already indicated that he was mentally retarded, and re-litigating the issue would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The State of Ohio argues that since the issue of Bies' mental retardation was not necessary for the State's decision prior to Atkins v. Virginia, contesting the issue of his mental state is not blocked by collateral estoppel, or in violation of the Double Jeopardy clause. This case is important because it will help to determine whether states can have the opportunity to relitigate the issue of whether a convicted capital defendant is mentally retarded before his sentence is commuted in light of Atkins.
1. Did the Sixth Circuit violate the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") when, in overruling an Ohio post-conviction court on double jeopardy grounds, it crafted a new definition of "acquittal" that conflicts with this Court's decisions?
2. Do the Double Jeopardy Clause's protections apply to a state post-conviction hearing on the question of a death-sentenced inmate's mental retardation under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), that does not expose the inmate to the risk of any additional criminal punishment?
3. Did the Sixth Circuit violate AEDPA when it applied the Double Jeopardy Clause's collateral estoppel component to enjoin an Ohio post-conviction court from deciding the issue of a death-sentenced inmate's mental retardation under Atkins even though the Ohio Supreme Court did not actually and necessarily decide the issue on direct review?
In 1992, Respondent Michael Bies was convicted of the kidnapping, murder, and attempted rape of a ten-year-old boy. See Bies v. Bagley, 519 F.3d 324, 327 (2008). Bies admitted to participating in the murder with the aid of an accomplice. See State v. Bies, 74 Ohio St.
Special thanks to Professor John H. Blume, Professor of Law at Cornell Law School and Director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project. He is serving as Counsel of Record for Respondent Michael Bies and lent insight on the most important issues that may shape the Supreme Court's decision in this case.
Are indigent prisoners entitled to government funds to present new claims of mental incompetency in post-conviction proceedings in state court?
The Supreme Court will determine the extent to which indigent prisoners sitting on death row are entitled to government resources in order to present new claims of mental incompetency in post-conviction proceedings. Brumfield argues that the Louisiana state court violated federal law by interfering with his due process rights. In contrast, Cain argues that the state court did not violate any of Brumfield’s clearly established rights under federal law. This case raises questions about the extent to which federal courts may rely on states’ pre-Atkins proceedings to uphold death sentences imposed on prisoners now offering evidence that they were mentally incompetent. Determining this question implicates the extent to which a state’s quality or reliability of review should factor into the federal courts’ deference to the previous state court determination. This case will have implications for indigent prisoners sentenced to death prior to the Court’s decision in Atkins.
This case arises from Kevan Brumfield’s 1993 conviction for the murder of a Baton Rouge police officer and an attempted armed robbery. See Brumfield v. Cain, 854 F. Supp. 2d 366, 371 (M.D. La. 2012). On January 5, 1993, Brumfield and an associate went to a self-described psychic counselor for a reading. See State of Louisiana ex rel. Cain v. Brumfield, 737 So. 2d 660, 662 (La.
The authors would like to thank Professors Keir Weyble, Michael Dorf, and John Blume for their help.
On August 12, 2000, police officers found Donald Rogers dead on his kitchen floor. Donald’s wife and niece had engaged in “burking,” a practice of inebriating a person with alcohol to the point of unconsciousness and then smothering the person to death. Donald’s niece, Vonlee Nicole Titlow (a transgender individual hereinafter referred to as a male), accepted a plea deal in exchange for testifying against Donald’s wife, but later withdrew from the plea. The prosecutor charged Titlow with murder rather than manslaughter, and a jury subsequently found Titlow guilty of second-degree murder. On appeal, Titlow argued that his trial attorney was ineffective for allowing Titlow to withdraw his plea. The Michigan State Court of Appeals rejected this argument and affirmed the trial court’s decision, and Titlow subsequently filed for habeas relief. The District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Titlow’s petition, but the Sixth Circuit reversed and ordered the prosecutor to re-offer the plea, concluding that the state court based its decision on an unreasonable determination of the facts. In this case, the Supreme Court will consider (1) whether the Sixth Circuit gave appropriate deference to the Michigan state courts, (2) what type of evidence is required to show that a defendant would have accepted a plea deal but for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel, and (3) what state courts are required to do when such defendants succeed on their ineffective-assistance claims. This case will address issues regarding the integrity of the country’s plea-bargaining system, and the evidentiary standards defendants must meet to be successful on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
Respondent Vonlee Titlow is a transgender male prisoner currently serving a twenty-to-forty year sentence. See Titlow v. Burt,680 F.3d 577, 582 (6th Cir.
top
Whether a federal court should presume that a prisoner's filing of a state petition for writ of habeas corpus was timely because the state court gave no indication that the filing was untimely, or whether the federal court should engage in an independent determination of whether the filing was timely under state law.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), state prisoners have one year to file their federal writ of habeas corpus petitions after their state conviction becomes final, but the one-year limitations period may be tolled for "properly filed" state habeas petitions that are "pending." In 1991, a jury convicted Reginald Chavis of attempted first degree murder. After unsuccessfully appealing his conviction, Chavis filed two rounds of state habeas petitions. The courts denied all of Chavis's state petitions, and Chavis filed a federal habeas petition on August 30, 2000. The state claims that the one-year limitations period applicable to Chavis's federal habeas corpus petition expired during the three years that passed between his first round of petitions to the California Court of Appeal and the filing of his first habeas petition with the California Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, held that Chavis's petition was "pending" and thus entitled to tolling for the three-year interval. It based its decision of the fact that the California Supreme Court did not dismiss the petition as untimely but rather decided it on the merits.
The Supreme Court's ruling will turn on an interpretation of the term "pending." If the Court agrees with Chavis that the federal court should presume from a state court's silence that the petitioner's filing was "pending," then the Court will affirm the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the three-year interval was tolled. But if the Supreme Court finds that a federal court must conduct an independent determination of timeliness under state law, then the Court must remand this case for further proceedings to determine whether Chavis's petition would be considered timely under California law. This case is significant because it will determine what a federal court must do when the state court is silent on the issue of whether the prisoner's filing was timely under state law. Thus, it may have an impact on federalism, comity, and finality, as well as the intended function of the writ of habeas corpus.
1. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err in holding that a prisoner is entitled to tolling for a three-year interval between his first round petitions for writ of habeas corpus to the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court-an interval during which AEDPA took effect-because the California Supreme Court did not dismiss the petition as untimely, but summarily denied the petition without comment or citation?
2. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals contravene the Supreme Court's decision in Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 225 (2002), which held that the California Supreme Court's denial of a habeas petition "on the merits" does not itself "indicate that the petition was timely"?
On July 29, 1991, a jury in Sacramento County Superior Court convicted Reginald Chavis of attempted murder and sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Chavis v. LeMarque, 382 F.3d 921, 923 (9th Cir. 2004).
1. Did the Court of Appeals meet all of the requirements necessary to issue a valid certificate of appealability and, therefore, to hear the petitioner’s case?
2. Did the one-year statute of limitations for filing a writ of habeas corpus begin running on the day that the state court made its judgment final, or on the day that the period for a prisoner to appeal to the state court of last resort expired?
Petitioner Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez alleged that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated when he was charged with murder ten years after an alleged shooting occurred. Although Gonzalez did not appeal his case to the Texas state court of last resort, he later petitioned for federal habeas review. The district court held that Gonzalez’s petition was time-barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) because it was filed more than one year after the period to appeal to the highest Texas state court expired. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability, but did not indicate which underlying constitutional claim was at issue in the certificate of appealability. The parties now disagree on whether the Fifth Circuit had jurisdiction over Gonzalez’s case after issuing the certificate of appealability, and which event starts the one-year clock for federal habeas review. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will affect petitioners’ ability to seek federal habeas review; it will also affect the allocation of judicial resources in reviewing certificates of appealability and federal habeas claims.
1. Was there jurisdiction to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and to adjudicate petitioner's appeal?
2. Was the application for writ of habeas corpus out of time under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) due to “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review”?
In June 1995, Roberto Velasquez was murdered outside a Texas apartment building; his sister identified Petitioner Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez as the shooter. See Gonzalez v. Texas, No. 05-05-01140-CR (Tex.App.
Life Sentences Blog, http://www.lifesentencesblog.com/?p=2515 (Michael O’Hear, June 14, 2011)
Whether a court can grant federal habeas relief based on a Supreme Court decision decided after the last state court adjudication on the merits, but before the petitioner has exhausted all appeal options.
Petitioner Eric Greene was accused of participating in a grocery store robbery that left the storeowner dead. Greene argues that statements made by non-testifying co-defendants improperly implicated him, because the trial court redacted co-defendant statements by replacing references to Greene with blanks or neutral pronouns. While Greene awaited appeal, the Supreme Court decided Gray v. Maryland, which held that obvious redactions of the kind in Greene’s case do not sufficiently protect the accused. Based on this development, Greene petitioned for habeas relief. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied relief, reasoning that Section 2254(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act does not apply because Gray was not “clearly established Federal law” during Greene’s trial. Greene argues under Teague v. Lane that habeas petitioners benefit from any Supreme Court decision handed down before their convictions become final. Respondent Jon Fisher argues that the phrase “clearly established” precludes re-litigation of issues settled by state courts unless the state’s decision was unreasonable in light of law existing when the decision was handed down. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will address the meaning of “clearly established federal law,” posing broad implications for future and ongoing habeas petitions.
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?
In December 1993, three or four men robbed a North Philadelphia grocery store, stealing the cash register and killing the storeowner. See Greene v. Palakovich, 606 F.3d 85, 87–88 (3d Cir.
ABA Cert alert, Carol Garfiel Freeman: Supreme Court Cases of Interest (Summer 2011)
Habeas Corpus Blog: Habeas Corpus – New Cert. Grant (Apr. 4, 2011)
Whether the California Supreme Court's summary denial of Richter's claim was an adjudication on the merits that qualifies for state court deference under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d), and whether the Court reasonably adjudicated both prongs of Richter's Strickland claim.
Joshua Richter, convicted of murder, alleged that he received inadequate assistance from his attorney at trial. Richter argued that his attorney should have presented expert testimony concerning a blood splatter at the crime scene, which could have corroborated his version of the events. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Richter and granted his request for habeas corpus relief. Kelly Harrington, the prison warden, claimed that Richter did not receive inadequate counsel and that the California Supreme Court’s earlier summary disposition denying habeas corpus relief should be upheld. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine the level of deference that should be granted to lower court orders, such as summary dispositions, which could discourage lower courts from issuing such orders in the future.
In granting habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, did the Ninth Circuit 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?
In addition, the parties were directed to brief the following question: 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)?
On December 19, 1995, Respondent Joshua Richter (“Richter”) and his co-worker Christian Branscombe (“Branscombe”) drove to Joshua Johnson’s (“Johnson”) home, to deliver money that Richter owed to his co-worker “Tony” and to buy marijuana from Johnson. See Richter v. Hickman, 578 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir.
· Wex: AEDPA
· Civil Procedure and Federal Court Blog: SCOTUS Cert Grant of Interest: Harrington v. Richter (Feb. 25, 2010)
1. Does equitable tolling apply to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitioners?
2. If so, does “gross negligence” of the habeas petitioner’s counsel fall under the “extraordinary circumstances” prerequisite to equitable tolling?
Albert Holland, a death row inmate, twice wrote letters to his attorney to inquire as to the status of his federal habeas petition. His attorney failed to reply to either letter. Holland eventually filed a pro se federal habeas petition in federal district court. However, with the delay in filing, the district court denied the habeas petition as untimely. After gaining new counsel, Holland argued that his attorney’s “egregious conduct” constituted “extraordinary circumstances” so as to trigger equitable tolling of the petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, even though representation of Holland was “grossly negligent,” only an attorney’s “bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, mental impairment, or so forth” could be considered “extraordinary circumstances. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether “gross negligence” by an attorney constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” under the equitable tolling doctrine. The decision in this case will implicate the courts’ ability to timely resolve criminal cases and criminal defendants’ ability to file habeas petitions.
In determining that Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling to excuse the late filing of his habeas petition, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the reason for the late filing was the “gross negligence” on part of Petitioner’s state-appointed collateral attorney’s failure to file the petition in a timely fashion despite repeated instructions from the Petitioner to do so. However, under the new test announced by the Eleventh Circuit in Petitioner’s case, no allegation of attorney negligence or failure to meet a lawyer’s standard of care, in the absence of bad faith, dishonesty, divided loyalty, or mental impairment, could ever qualify as an exceptional circumstance warranting equitable tolling.
This Court should grant certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether “gross negligence” by collateral counsel, which directly results in the late filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, can qualify as an exceptional circumstance warranting equitable tolling, or whether, in conflict with other circuits, the Eleventh Circuit was proper in determining that factors beyond “gross negligence” must be established before an extraordinary circumstance can be found that would warrant equitable tolling.
In 1996, a Florida state court convicted Albert Holland of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, attempted sexual battery, and armed robbery, and subsequently sentenced Holland to death. See Holland v. Florida, 539 F.3d 1334, 1336–37 (11th Cir.
· Congressional Research Services: Federal Habeas Corpus: A Brief Legal Overview
· Federation of American Scientists: Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: A Summary
· Commission on Capital Cases: Inmate Details for Albert Holland
