Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

SHOOP v. TWYFORD 

Opinion of the Court 

reasons just discussed, that was error.

Reviewing  Twyford’s  request  for  transportation  under
the proper standard is straightforward, because his motion 
sheds no light on how he might persuade a court to consider 
the results of his testing, given the limitations AEDPA im-
poses  on  presenting  new  evidence.    He  argued  that  it  is  
“plausible  that  the  testing  to  be  administered  is  likely  to
reveal evidence in support of ” his claims of ineffective as-
sistance of counsel and expert witness, lack of competency 
to  stand  trial,  and  the  involuntariness  of  his  confession. 
Motion to Transport 8.  Whether or not that is true, Twyford
never explained how the results of the neurological testing 
could be admissible in his habeas proceeding, and it is hard 
to see how they could be.  The Ohio courts already adjudi-
cated and rejected most of these claims on the merits, and
the District Court’s AEDPA review will therefore be limited 
to “the record that was before the state court.”  Pinholster, 
563 U. S., at 181.  As for the claims that the state courts did 
not consider, Twyford never argued that he could clear the
bar in §2254(e)(2) for expanding the state court record, or 
that the bar was somehow inapplicable.

Twyford  asserted  in  passing  that  the  desired  evidence 
could  “plausibly”  bear  on  the  question  whether  to  excuse 
procedural default.  Motion to Transport 8.  By way of back-
ground,  a  federal  court  may  not  review  a  claim  a  habeas
petitioner failed to adequately present to state courts, un-
less he shows “cause to excuse his failure to comply with the
state  procedural  rule  and  actual  prejudice  resulting  from 
the alleged constitutional violation.”  Davila v. Davis, 582 
U. S.  ___,  ___  (2017)  (slip  op.,  at  5)  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted).  Twyford suggested that the results of his 
brain testing could help make that showing.  But he did not 
identify the particular defaulted claims he hopes to resur-
rect, nor did he explain how the testing would matter to his 
ability to do so.  And in any event, this Court has already
held  that,  if  §2254(e)(2)  applies  and  the  prisoner  cannot