Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47187284/Harrington-v-Richter
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 17:19:08
Document Index: 295578784

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2254', '§2254', '§2254', '§2254', '§2254', '§2254', '§2254']

Harrington v. Richter UploadLog InSign UpBrowseBy TypeBooks - FictionBooks - Non FictionBrochures & CatalogsComicsGovernment DocsHow-To Guides & ManualsNewspapers & MagazinesPresentationsMenus & RecipesResearchSchool WorkBy TopicArt & DesignBusinessCreative WritingEntertainmentFictionFoodGovernment & PoliticsHealth & FitnessReligionScienceLiterature
HARRINGTON, WARDEN
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE NINTH CIRCUITNo. 09–587. Argued October 12, 2010—Decided January 19, 2011In 1994, deputies called to drug dealer Johnson’s California home foundJohnson wounded and Klein fatally wounded. Johnson claimed thathe was shot in his bedroom by respondent Richter’s codefendant,Branscombe; that he found Klein on the living room couch; and thathis gun safe, a pistol, and cash were missing. His account was cor-roborated by evidence at the scene, including, relevant here, spentshell casings, blood spatters, and blood pooled in the bedroom door-way. Investigators took a blood sample from a wall near the bedroomdoor, but not from the blood pool. A search of Richter’s home turnedup the safe and ammunition matching evidence at the scene. Afterhis arrest on murder and other charges, Richter initially denied hisinvolvement, but later admitted disposing of Johnson’s andBranscombe’s guns. The prosecution initially built its case on John-son’s testimony and the circumstantial evidence, but it adjusted itsapproach after Richter’s counsel, in his opening statement, outlinedthe theory that Branscombe shot Johnson in self-defense and thatKlein was killed in the crossfire in the bedroom doorway, andstressed the lack of forensic support for the prosecution’s case. Theprosecution then decided to call an expert in blood pattern evidence,who testified that it was unlikely that Klein had been shot outsidethe living room and then moved to the couch, and a serologist, whotestified that the blood sample taken near the blood pool could beJohnson’s but not Klein’s. Under cross-examination, she concededthat she had not tested the sample for cross-contamination and thata degraded sample would make it difficult to tell if it had blood of Klein’s type. Defense counsel called Richter to tell his conflictingversion of events and called other witnesses to corroborate Richter’sversion. Richter was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.
RICHTERSyllabusHe later sought habeas relief from the California Supreme Court, as-serting,
that his counsel provided ineffective assistance,see
, 466 U. S. 668, when he failed to pre-sent expert testimony on blood evidence, because it could have dis-closed the blood pool’s source and bolstered Richter’s theory. He alsooffered affidavits from forensics experts to support his claim. Thecourt denied the petition in a one-sentence summary order. Subse-quently, he reasserted his state claims in a federal habeas petition.The District Court denied his petition. A Ninth Circuit panel af-firmed, but the en banc court reversed. Initially it questionedwhether 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)—which, as amended by the Antiterror-ism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), limits theavailability of federal habeas relief for claims previously “adjudicatedon the merits” in state court—applied to Richter’s petition, since theState Supreme Court issued only a summary denial. But it found thestate-court decision unreasonable anyway. In its view, trial counselwas deficient in failing to consult blood evidence experts in planninga trial strategy and in preparing to rebut expert evidence the prose-cution might—and later did—offer.
:1. Section 2254(d) applies to Richter’s petition, even though thestate court’s order was unaccompanied by an opinion explaining thecourt’s reasoning. Pp. 7–10.(a) By its terms, §2254(d) bars relitigation of a claim “adjudicatedon the merits” in state court unless, among other exceptions, the ear-lier state-court “decision” involved “an unreasonable application” of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by” this Court,§2254(d)(1). Nothing in its text—which refers only to a “decision” re-sulting “from an adjudication”—requires a statement of reasons.Where the state-court decision has no explanation, the habeas peti-tioner must still show there was no reasonable basis for the statecourt to deny relief. There is no merit to the assertion that applying§2254(d) when state courts issue summary rulings will encouragethose courts to withhold explanations. The issuance of summary dis-positions can enable state judiciaries to concentrate resources wheremost needed. Pp. 7–9.(b) Nor is there merit to Richter’s argument that §2254(d) doesnot apply because the California Supreme Court did not say it wasadjudicating his claim “on the merits.” When a state court has de-nied relief, adjudication on the merits can be presumed absent anycontrary indication or state-law procedural principles. The presump-tion may be overcome by a more likely explanation for the statecourt’s decision, but Richter does not make that showing here. Pp. 9– 10.
3Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011)Syllabus2. Richter was not entitled to the habeas relief ordered by theNinth Circuit. Pp. 10–24.(a) That court failed to accord the required deference to the deci-sion of a state court adjudicating the same claims later presented inthe federal habeas petition. Its opinion shows an improper under-standing of §2254(d)’s unreasonableness standard and operation inthe context of a
claim. Asking whether the state court’sapplication of Strickland
’s standard was unreasonable is differentfrom asking whether defense counsel’s performance fell below thatstandard. Under AEDPA, a state court must be granted a deferenceand latitude that are not in operation in a case involving direct re-view under
. A state court’s determination that a claimlacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as “fair-minded ju-rists could disagree” on the correctness of that decision.
, 541 U. S. 652, 664. And the more general the rule beingconsidered, “the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes incase-by-case determinations.”
The Ninth Circuit explicitly con-ducted a
review and found a
violation; it then de-clared without further explanation that the state court’s contrary de-cision was unreasonable. But §2254(d) requires a habeas court todetermine what arguments or theories supported, or could have sup-ported, the state-court decision; and then to ask whether it is possiblefair-minded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theoriesare inconsistent with a prior decision of this Court. AEDPA’s unrea-sonableness standard is not a test of the confidence of a federal ha-beas court in the conclusion it would reach as a
matter. Evena strong case for relief does not make the state court’s contrary con-clusion unreasonable. Section 2254(d) is designed to confirm thatstate courts are the principal forum for asserting constitutional chal-lenges to state convictions. Pp. 10–14.(b) The Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that Richter demon-strated an unreasonable application of Strickland
by the state court.Pp. 14–23.(1) Richter could have secured relief in state court only byshowing both that his counsel provided deficient assistance and thatprejudice resulted. To be deficient, counsel’s representation musthave fallen “below an objective standard of reasonableness,”
, 466 U. S., at 688; and there is a “strong presumption” thatcounsel’s representation is within the “wide range” of reasonable pro-fessional assistance,
at 689. The question is whether counselmade errors so fundamental that counsel was not functioning as thecounsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Prejudice requiresdemonstrating “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unpro-fessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been differ-
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. Harrington v. Richter Download or PrintAdd To Collection861Reads0Readcasts529Embed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published bymacrospect7211FollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansInfo and RatingCategory:Art & DesignRating:Upload Date:01/19/2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:No tagsFree download or readfalse online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47187284/Harrington-v-Richter01/19/2011pdftextoriginal
Recommended40 p.NASA v Nelsonmacrospect72111409 Reads21 p.Premo v. Mooremacrospect7211442 ReadsRecommended21 p.Premo v. Mooremacrospect7211442 Reads40 p.NASA v Nelsonmacrospect72111409 Reads207 p.2/1/11 Chevron RICO Filing TexacoEcuador5719 Reads26 p.Opinion 09-907macrospect7211298 Reads
More From This User8 p.10-333 Swarthout v. Cookemacrospect7211555 Reads12 p.09-291 Thompson v. North American Stainlessmacrospect7211926 Reads17 p.09-737 Ortiz v. Jordanmacrospect7211894 Reads22 p.09-329 Chase Bank v. McCoymacrospect7211685 Reads21 p.Premo v. Mooremacrospect7211442 Reads21 p.Premo v. mooremacrospect721117 Reads30 p.Harrington v. richtermacrospect7211138 Reads40 p.NASA v Nelsonmacrospect72111409 Reads18 p.Opinion 09-837macrospect7211276 Reads26 p.Opinion 09-907macrospect7211298 Reads26 p.Opinion 09-907macrospect721195 Reads12 p.Opinion.09-350macrospect7211997 Reads83 p.Rules of the Courtmacrospect7211682 Reads22 p.Abbott v. US/Gould v. US, 09-479macrospect7211837 Reads71 p.No. 08-964, Bilski v. Kapposmacrospect7211302 Reads214 p.No. 08-1521, McDonald v. Chicagomacrospect7211391 Reads67 p.No. 09-559, Doe v. Reedmacrospect7211896 Reads41 p.No. 09-158, Magwood v. Pattersonmacrospect7211604 Reads114 p.No. 08-1394, Skilling v. United Statesmacrospect7211952 Reads35 p.No. 08-1214, Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teams...macrospect7211759 Reads1 p.No. 08-1196, Weyhrauch v. United Statesmacrospect7211335 Reads42 p.No. 08-1191, Morrison v. National Australia Bankmacrospect72111112 Reads13 p.No. 08-876, Black v. United Statesmacrospect7211454 Reads27 p.No. 09-497, Rent-A-Center v. Jacksonmacrospect72111030 Reads