Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 505

529US2

Unit: $U47

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

430

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of the Court

“(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been pre-
viously discovered through the exercise of due dili-
gence; and

“(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufﬁcient
to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but
for constitutional error, no reasonable factﬁnder would
have found the applicant guilty of the underlying
offense.”

By the terms of its opening clause the statute applies only
to prisoners who have “failed to develop the factual basis of
a claim in State court proceedings.”
If the prisoner has
failed to develop the facts, an evidentiary hearing cannot be
granted unless the prisoner’s case meets the other conditions
of § 2254(e)(2). Here, petitioner concedes his case does not
comply with § 2254(e)(2)(B), see Brief for Petitioner 25, so he
may receive an evidentiary hearing only if his claims fall out-
side the opening clause.

There was no hearing in state court on any of the claims
for which petitioner now seeks an evidentiary hearing.
In
That, says the Commonwealth, is the end of the matter.
its view petitioner, whether or not through his own fault or
neglect, still “failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in
State court proceedings.” Petitioner, on the other hand,
says the phrase “failed to develop” means lack of diligence in
developing the claims, a defalcation he contends did not occur
since he made adequate efforts during state-court proceed-
ings to discover and present the underlying facts. The
Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner’s interpretation of
§ 2254(e)(2) but believed petitioner had not exercised enough
diligence to avoid the statutory bar. See 189 F. 3d, at 426.
We agree with petitioner and the Court of Appeals that
“failed to develop” implies some lack of diligence; but, unlike
the Court of Appeals, we ﬁnd no lack of diligence on petition-
er’s part with regard to two of his three claims.