Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

discovered  through  the  exercise  of  due  diligence.” 
§2254(e)(2)(A).    And  even  if  a  prisoner  can  satisfy  one  of 
those  two  exceptions,  he  must  also  show  that  the  desired
evidence would demonstrate, “by clear and convincing evi-
dence,”  that  “no  reasonable  factfinder”  would  have  con-
victed him of the charged crime.  §2254(e)(2)(B).  Thus, alt-
hough  state  prisoners  may  occasionally  submit  new 
evidence in federal court, “AEDPA’s statutory scheme is de-
signed to strongly discourage them from doing so.”  Pinhol-
ster, 563 U. S., at 186; see also Michael Williams, 529 U. S., 
at 437 (“Federal courts sitting in habeas are not an alterna-
tive forum for trying facts and issues which a prisoner made 
insufficient effort to pursue in state proceedings.”). 

We  have  explained  that  a  federal  court,  in  deciding
whether to grant an evidentiary hearing or “otherwise con-
sider new evidence” under §2254(e)(2), must first take into
account these restrictions.  Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, 596 
U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 21); see also Schriro, 550 
U. S., at 474.  The reasons for this are familiar.  A federal 
court “may never needlessly prolong a habeas case, particu-
larly  given  the  essential  need  to  promote  the  finality  of
state  convictions,”  so  a  court  must,  before  facilitating  the 
development of new evidence, determine that it could be le-
gally considered in the prisoner’s case.  Shinn, 596 U. S., at 
___ (slip op., at 21) (internal quotation marks and citation 
omitted);  see  also  Bracy  v.  Gramley,  520  U. S.  899,  904 
(1997) (“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant 
in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of 
ordinary course.”).  If §2254(e)(2) applies and the prisoner 
cannot  satisfy  its  “stringent  requirements,”  Michael  Wil-
liams, 529 U. S., at 433, holding an evidentiary hearing or 
otherwise expanding the state-court record would “prolong 
federal  habeas  proceedings  with  no  purpose,”  Shinn,  596 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 21) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  And that would in turn disturb the “State’s significant
interest in repose for concluded litigation.”  Harrington, 562