Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 503

529US2

Unit: $U47

[10-04-01 09:34:47] PAGES PGT: OPIN

428

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of the Court

stay and a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition
in the Court of Appeals. The Commonwealth argued that
petitioner’s evidentiary hearing was prohibited by 28 U. S. C.
§ 2254(e)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. III). A divided panel of the
Court of Appeals granted the emergency stay and remanded
for the District Court to apply the statute to petitioner’s
request for an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the District
Court vacated its order granting an evidentiary hearing and
dismissed the petition, having determined petitioner could
not satisfy § 2254(e)(2)’s requirements.
The Court of Appeals afﬁrmed.

It ﬁrst considered peti-
tioner’s argument that § 2254(e)(2) did not apply to his case
because he had been diligent in attempting to develop his
claims in state court. Citing its decision in Cardwell v.
Greene, 152 F. 3d 331 (CA4), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 1037
(1998), the Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner that
§ 2254(e)(2) would not apply if he had exercised diligence in
state court. The court held, however, that petitioner had
not been diligent and so had “failed to develop” in state court
the factual bases of his Brady, juror bias, and prosecutorial
misconduct claims. See 189 F. 3d 421, 426 (CA4 1999). The
Court of Appeals concluded petitioner could not satisfy the
statute’s conditions for excusing his failure to develop
the facts and held him barred from receiving an evidentiary
hearing. The Court of Appeals ruled in the alternative that,
even if § 2254(e)(2) did not apply, petitioner would be ineligi-
ble for an evidentiary hearing under the cause and prejudice
standard of pre-AEDPA law. See id., at 428.

Addressing petitioner’s claim of an undisclosed informal
agreement between the Commonwealth and Cruse, the
Court of Appeals rejected it on the merits under 28 U. S. C.
§ 2254(d)(1) and, as a result, did not consider whether
§ 2254(e)(2) applied. See 189 F. 3d, at 429.

On October 18, 1999, petitioner ﬁled an application for stay
of execution and a petition for a writ of certiorari. On Octo-