Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-507_h315.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

7 

Per Curiam 

all  the  reasons  why  it  thought  Jones  “could  have”  been  a 
viable alternative suspect.  E.g., id., at 938–942.  And ra-
ther than engage with the “dissent[’s] recount[ing of] th[e] 
evidence” against Hines, the majority simply promised that 
it  had  “carefully  considered”  this  proof  before  summarily 
dismissing it as “not overwhelming.”  Id., at 939. 
  Had the Sixth Circuit properly considered the entire rec-
ord,  it would  have  had little trouble deferring to the  Ten-
nessee court’s conclusion that Hines suffered no prejudice 
regarding  his  conviction  or  sentence.    Again,  the  critical 
question was not whether the Sixth Circuit itself could see 
a  “ ‘substantial’  . . .  likelihood  of  a  different  result”  had 
Hines’  attorney  taken  a  different  approach.    Cullen,  563 
U. S., at 189.  All that mattered was whether the Tennessee 
court, notwithstanding its substantial “latitude to reasona-
bly determine that a defendant has not [shown prejudice],” 
still managed to blunder so badly that every fairminded ju-
rist would disagree.  Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U. S. 111, 
123 (2009). 
  It did not.  The Tennessee court reasonably looked to the 
substantial  evidence  of  Hines’  guilt.    Hines,  2004  WL 
1567120,  *27–*28. 
  And  it  reasonably  rejected  the 
“ ‘farfetched’ ” possibility that Jones committed and self-re-
ported a gruesome murder, in the presence of a witness, at 
a place where he was well known to the staff.  Ibid.  In light 
of  this  straightforward,  commonsense  analysis,  the  Sixth 
Circuit had no license to hypothesize an alternative theory 
of the crime in which Jones became a suspect 35 years after 
the fact—much less rely on that fanciful theory to grant re-
lief.* 

—————— 

*Even on its own terms, there is little merit to the Sixth Circuit’s spec-
ulation that a jury who heard Jones’ full story might have blamed him 
instead of Hines.  After all, the story Jones told at trial was in many ways 
more suspicious than the truth.  According to his initial account, Jones 
fortuitously stopped by the motel, hung around outside, and then stum-
bled upon the body.  All without a witness to verify his actions.  The jury