Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 1091

INDEX 

1245 

FIRST  AMENDMENT.  See  Constitutional  Law,  II. 

FLORIDA.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  7. 

FORFEITURE  OF  PROPERTY.  See  Constitutional  Law,  I. 

FOURTH  AMENDMENT.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  10. 

FREEDOM  OF  SPEECH.  See  Constitutional  Law,  II. 

HABEAS  CORPUS. 

1.  Adequate and independent state-law grounds for judgment—Discre­
tionary  procedural  rule.—A  state  procedural  rule  is  not  automatically 
“inadequate” under adequate state grounds doctrine—and therefore unen­
forceable on federal habeas corpus review—because that state rule is dis­
cretionary rather than mandatory.  Beard v. Kindler, p. 53. 

2.  Capital  murder—Misconduct  by  trial  ofﬁcials—Discovery  and  evi­
dentiary hearing.—This  capital  case  is  remanded  for  Eleventh  Circuit  to 
determine, in light of Cone  v.  Bell, 556 U. S. 449, whether petitioner’s alle­
gations  of  judge,  jury,  and  bailiff  misconduct  warrant  discovery  and  an 
evidentiary hearing.  Wellons v. Hall, p. 220. 

3.  Capital murder—Mitigation evidence—Ineffective assistance of 
counsel.—Because  Ohio  state-court  decisions  denying  Spisak’s  challenge 
to his mitigation instruction and his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim 
were not “contrary to, or . . .  an  unreasonable application of, clearly estab­
lished  Federal law,”  28  U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1),  Sixth  Circuit  erred in  accept­
ing them and ordering habeas relief.  Smith v. Spisak, p. 139. 

4.  Capital  murder—Sentencing  phase—D isposal  of  unresolved 
claims.—Where District Court granted Corcoran habeas relief based on a 
Sixth Amendment violation and thus did not address his other challenges 
to  his  death  sentence,  Seventh  Circuit  erred  when,  in  reversing  Sixth 
Amendment  ruling,  it  disposed  of  unresolved  claims  without  explanation 
rather  than permitting  District  Court to  consider them  on  remand or  ex­
plaining  why  such  consideration  was  unnecessary.  Corcoran  v.  Levenha­
gen, p. 1. 

5.  Capital  murder—Sentencing  phase—Ineffective assistance  of  coun­
sel.—Because  respondent’s  attorneys  met  constitutional  minimum  of 
competence under correct standard, Sixth Circuit erred in granting habeas 
relief  based  on  ground  that  respondent  had  not  received  effective  assist­
ance of counsel during his capital murder trial’s sentencing phase.  Bobby 
v. Van Hook, p. 4. 

6.  Capital  murder—Sentencing  phase—Ineffective assistance  of  coun­
sel.—Even if performance of Belmontes’ attorney during sentencing phase 
of  his  capital  murder  trial  was  deﬁcient,  he  cannot  establish  prejudice 
sufﬁcient to show that counsel’s assistance was constitutionally ineffective 
under Strickland v.  Washington, 466 U. S. 668.  Wong v. Belmontes, p. 15.