Shoop v. Twyford

The court decided how a jurisdiction stripping provision of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act applied to the Supreme Court.

The court held that once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first-filed habeas corpus petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a "second or successive application" properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b).

The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.

The court held that federal courts can not grant habeas relief when state courts have already ruled on a prisoner's claim, unless the situation satisfies the test laid out in Brecht v. Abrahamson, and the exceptions to the AEDPA's §2254(d) jurisdictional bar.

The Court held that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

The court held that a federal court sitting in a habeas corpus proceeding should "look through" an unexplained, summary ruling to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning.

The court held that the ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel does not provide cause to excuse the procedural default of ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims.

The Court held that when the conditions of Ake v. Oklahoma are met, the state must give a defendant access to a mental health expert who is sufficiently available and independent from the prosecution to examine and assist the defense.· AI-written

The Court held that because Brumfield satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)’s requirements, he was entitled to have his Atkins v. Virginia claim considered on the merits in federal court.

The United States Supreme Court upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial.

In a federal habeas proceeding, the Court held that a criminal defendant may defend the district court's judgment on alternative grounds without a cross-appeal or certificate of appealability, unless doing so would enlarge the defendant's rights under the judgment.· AI-written

The Court held that judges may review new evidence of actual innocence presented after AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations.

The court held that the Michigan Court of Appeals' rejection of a due-process habeas claim was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's criminal retroactivity case law.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a defendant on death row did not need to be held competent during federal habeas corpus proceedings.

The court held that a court abuses its discretion if it raises a timeliness objection on its own after the State deliberately waived a statute of limitations defense.

In a habeas case under AEDPA, the Court unanimously ruled that "clearly established Federal law" does not include Supreme Court decisions announced after the last state-court adjudication on the merits but before the conviction became final.· AI-written

The Court held that in federal habeas proceedings under § 2254(d)(1), only evidence presented to the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits could be considered, and that the respondent was not entitled to the habeas relief the Ninth Circuit had granted.· AI-written

The court held that it is proper to toll the time available for a habeas petition upon a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim.

The court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's standard for federal habeas relief applies even when a state court does not issue an opinion explaining the basis of its decision.

The Court held that, when a state prisoner obtains federal habeas corpus relief and is re-sentenced, a habeas application challenging the new judgment is not a "second or successive" challenge even if the prisoner could have challenged the original sentence on the same ground.

The court held that the trial court's decision in this case was not unreasonable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

The Court held that the state court's conclusion that the petitioner's counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present evidence of his mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable determination of the facts.

The Court, in a case brought by a Guantanamo detainee, held that the detainees had a constitutional right to habeas corpus and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.· AI-written

The court unanimously concluded that the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1), extends to U.S. citizens held overseas by American forces subject to an American chain of command, even if acting as part of a multinational coalition.

In AEDPA proceedings, the Court held that a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state criminal trial under the "substantial and injurious effect" standard, whether or not the state appellate court reviewed it for harmlessness.· AI-written

The Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing an evidentiary hearing to a convicted murderer who had told his counsel not to present mitigation evidence at sentencing, reversing the Ninth Circuit's en banc ruling.· AI-written

The court held that the statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas relief from a state decision is not tolled while a certiorari petition is pending with the United States Supreme Court because it is tolled only during review by state courts.

The Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try Guantanamo Bay detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.· AI-written

The Court found that admitting new DNA evidence was in line with Schlup v. Delo (1995), which allows cases to be reopened in light of new evidence.

In a 5–4 decision, the court held that, when the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte (on its own initiative) the petition on that basis.

The Court held that, absent clear direction from the state supreme court on the timeliness of habeas filings, a federal appellate court must itself examine the delay in each case and determine what the state courts would have held about timeliness.· AI-written

The Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

In a case over a U.S. citizen's military detention as an "unlawful combatant," the Court did not decide the detention-authority issue and held that the habeas corpus petition had been improperly filed.· AI-written

The Supreme Court held that not considering a defendant's low IQ would breach his Eighth Amendment rights and constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court held that habeas corpus relief was unavailable for a claim that a sentence under California's three strikes law was an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment barred by the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments.· AI-written

The Court upheld a death sentence despite the defendant's argument that he should not be sentenced to death because he was suffering from drug-induced psychosis when he committed the crimes.

The Court held that the rule from Cage v. Louisiana, which found certain jury instructions on reasonable doubt unconstitutional, was not made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.· AI-written

The Court held that the petition did not toll.

The Court held that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a certificate of appealability must be issued by a circuit Justice of judge before an appeal can proceed.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that the provision at issue only bars evidentiary hearings by state prisoners in federal habeas proceedings if "there is lack of diligence, or some greater fault, attributable to the prisoner or his counsel".

The Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) did not apply to a petition that raises only a competency to be executed claim and that respondent did not, therefore, need authorization to file his petition in the District Court.

The Court held that a federal court of appeals has an inherent power to recall its mandate, but in habeas corpus cases that power may be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances, given the emphasis on finality of criminal judgments.· AI-written

The Court held the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's amendments to Title 28, Section 2254 of the United States Code applies to cases filed after the Act's effective date.

The Court concluded that AEDPA's provisions changed the standards governing the granting of habeas corpus petitions but did not violate the Suspension Clause.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) does not apply in custody rulings for Miranda.

The United States Supreme Court expanded the ability to reopen a case in light of new evidence of actual innocence.

The Court held that Fifth Amendment Miranda v. Arizona arguments can be raised again in federal habeas corpus proceedings, even if a criminal defendant had a fair chance to argue those claims in state court.

The Court held that federal courts deciding whether to grant habeas relief for unconstitutional trial error should assess such claims using the harmless error standard from Kotteakos v. United States.· AI-written

The Court held that claims of actual innocence do not, by themselves, provide a basis for federal habeas relief.

The Court held that a cause-and-prejudice standard, rather than Fay v. Noia's deliberate bypass standard, is the correct standard for excusing a habeas corpus petitioner's failure to develop a material fact in state-court proceedings.

The Court held that a petitioner was barred from raising federal constitutional claims in federal habeas court because he had procedurally defaulted them in state habeas proceedings by filing his notice of appeal three days late.· AI-written

The court held that the plain statement rule of Michigan v. Long applies to federal habeas proceedings originating from state court judgments.

The Court held that a convicted person may use habeas corpus to challenge their conviction if they later learn that the prosecution racially discriminated in jury selection.

The Court held that the "cause and prejudice" rule applies to appeals, so a person ordinarily cannot file a habeas petition to review a constitutional problem that their lawyer did not complain about in their initial appeal.

The Court limited the jurisdiction of federal courts to review state court factual determinations under 28 USC § 2254(e).

The Court held that a state prisoner who failed to raise a federal constitutional claim at trial or on appeal as state rules required, without showing cause and prejudice, could not raise it later in federal habeas corpus proceedings.· AI-written

The court held that Congress's abrogation of standard habeas corpus procedure in the District of Columbia's local court system was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ because the District had an adequate post-conviction alternative.

The Court limited which claims of Fourth Amendment violations could be made by state prisoners in habeas corpus petitions in federal courts.

The Court held that when state law lets a defendant plead guilty while keeping the right to judicial review of specified constitutional issues, the defendant may still pursue those claims in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.· AI-written

The Court held that criminal defendants could raise claims that evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in a collateral attack under the federal habeas corpus statute, overruling the Eighth Circuit's contrary decision.· AI-written

The Court held that state prisoners were entitled to federal habeas relief even if they had not pursued a state-court remedy that was no longer available to them, unless they had deliberately bypassed the orderly procedure of state courts.· AI-written

The Court expanded the circumstances in which federal courts should hold evidentiary hearings when presented with petitions for habeas corpus by state prisoners following denial of postconviction relief in state court.

The court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment.

The Court overturned the convictions of three white men who conspired against black sawmill workers, holding that Congress lacked the power under the Thirteenth Amendment to intervene against racially motivated interference with labor contracts.· AI-written

The Court decided that the writ of coram nobis was the proper application for people who had completed their incarceration to seek federal post-conviction review challenging the validity of a federal criminal conviction.· AI-written

The Court held that kidnapping of a defendant by State authorities for the purpose of taking a suspect from one jurisdiction to another for criminal trial, is constitutional.

It decided that US courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a US-administered prison in Germany.

The Court denied a federal district court jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus if the person detained is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court when the petition is filed.

The court held that a circuit court may order that an imprisoned person appear before it to argue an appeal.