Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/563/170/opinion.html
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 12:07:54
Document Index: 5416122

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

Cullen v. Pinholster (Opinion by Justice Thomas) :: 563 U.S. 170 (2011) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center Log In
› Cullen v. Pinholster
Cullen v. Pinholster 563 U.S. 170 (2011)
v. SCOTT LYNN PINHOLSTER
After the California Supreme Court twice unanimously denied Pinholster habeas relief, a Federal District Court held an evidentiary hearing and granted Pinholster habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. §2254. The District Court concluded that Pinholster’s trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective at the penalty phase of trial. Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Pinholster v. Ayers, 590 F. 3d 651 (2009). Considering the new evidence adduced in the District Court hearing, the Court of Appeals held that the California Supreme Court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” §2254(d)(1). We granted certiorari and now reverse.
Having presented Dr. Stalberg’s declaration to the state court, Pinholster returned to the District Court. In November 1997, he filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. His allegations of penalty-phase ineffective assistance of counsel were identical to those in his second state habeas petition. Both parties moved for summary judgment and Pinholster also moved, in the alternative, for an evidentiary hearing. The District Court concluded that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, did not apply and granted an evidentiary hearing. Before the hearing, the State deposed Dr. Stalberg, who stated that none of the new material he reviewed altered his original diagnosis. Dr. Stalberg disagreed with Dr. Woods’ conclusion that Pinholster suffers from bipolar disorder. Pinholster did not call Dr. Stalberg to testify at the hearing. He presented two new medical experts: Dr. Sophia Vinogradov, a psychiatrist who diagnosed Pinholster with organic personality syndrome and ruled out antisocial personality disorder, and Dr. Donald Olson, a pediatric neurologist who suggested that Pinholster suffers from partial epilepsy and brain injury. The State called Dr. F. David Rudnick, a psychiatrist who, like Dr. Stalberg, diagnosed Pinholster with antisocial personality disorder and rejected any diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Limiting §2254(d)(1) review to the state-court record is consistent with our precedents interpreting that statu-
tory provision. Our cases emphasize that review under §2254(d)(1) focuses on what a state court knew and did. State-court decisions are measured against this Court’s precedents as of “the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U. S. 63, 71–72 (2003). To determine whether a particular decision is “contrary to” then-established law, a federal court must consider whether the decision “applies a rule that contradicts [such] law” and how the decision “confronts [the] set of facts” that were before the state court. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 405, 406 (2000) (Terry Williams). If the state-court decision “identifies the correct governing legal principle” in existence at the time, a federal court must assess whether the decision “unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id., at 413. It would be strange to ask federal courts to analyze whether a state court’s adjudication resulted in a decision that unreasonably applied federal law to facts not before the state court.[Footnote 3]
The Court of Appeals’ reliance on Holland v. Jackson, 542 U. S. 649 (2004) (per curiam), was also mistaken. In Holland, we initially stated that “whether a state court’s decision was unreasonable [under §2254(d)(1)] must be assessed in light of the record the court had before it.” Id., at 652. We then went on to assume for the sake of argument what some Courts of Appeals had heldthat §2254(d)(1), despite its mandatory language, simply does not apply when a federal habeas court has admitted new evidence that supports a claim previously adjudicated in state court.[Footnote 6] Id., at 653. There was no reason to decide that question because regardless, the hearing should have been barred by §2254(e)(2). Today, we reject that assumption and hold that evidence introduced in federal court
has no bearing on §2254(d)(1) review. If a claim has
been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a fed-
eral habeas petitioner must overcome the limitation of §2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court.[Footnote 7]
The record also shows that Pinholster’s counsel confronted a challenging penalty phase with an unsympathetic client, which limited their feasible mitigation strategies. By the end of the guilt phase, the jury had observed Pinholster “glor[y]” in “his criminal disposition” and “hundreds of robberies.” Pinholster, 1 Cal. 4th, at 945, 907, 824 P. 2d, at 611, 584. During his cross-examination, Pinholster laughed or smirked when he told the jury that his “occupation” was “a crook,” when he was asked whether he had threatened a potential witness, and when he described thwarting police efforts to recover a gun he had once used. 44 Tr. 6225. He bragged about being a “professional robber.” 43 id., at 6204. To sup-
port his defense, Pinholster claimed that he used only gunsnot knivesto commit his crimes. But during cross-examination, Pinholster admitted that he had previously been convicted of using a knife in a kidnaping. Pinholster also said he was a white supremacist and that he frequently carved swastikas into other people’s property as “a sideline to robbery.” 44 id., at 6246.
At bottom, Justice Sotomayor’s view is grounded in little more than her own sense of “prudence,” post, at 26 (internal quotation marks omitted), and what appears to be her belief that the only reasonable mitigation strategy in capital cases is to “help” the jury “understand” the defendant, post, at 35. According to Justice Sotomayor, that Pinholster was an unsympathetic client “compound[ed], rather than excuse[d], counsel’s deficiency” in pursuing further evidence “that could explain why Pinholster was the way he was.” Post, at 30. But it certainly can be reasonable for attorneys to conclude that creating sympathy for the defendant’s family is a better idea because the defendant himself is simply unsympathetic. Justice Sotomayor’s approach is flatly inconsistent with Strickland’s recognition that “[t]here are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case.” 466 U. S., at 689. There comes a point where a defense attorney will reasonably decide that another strategy is in order, thus “mak[ing] particular investigations unnecessary.” Id., at 691; cf. 590 F. 3d, at 692 (Kozinski, C. J., dissenting) (“The current infatuation with ‘humanizing’ the defendant as the be-all and end-all of mitigation disregards the possibility that this may be the wrong tactic in some cases because experienced lawyers conclude that the jury simply won’t buy it”). Those decisions are due “a heavy measure of deference.” Strickland, supra, at 691. The California Supreme Court could have reasonably concluded that Pinholster’s counsel made such a reasoned decision in this case.
As with deficiency, the Court of Appeals found this case to be “materially indistinguishable” from Terry Williams and Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U. S. 374 (2005). 590 F. 3d, at 684. But this Court did not apply AEDPA deference to the question of prejudice in those cases; each of them lack the important “doubly deferential” standard of Strickland and AEDPA. See Terry Williams, 529 U. S., at 395–397 (reviewing a state-court decision that did not apply the correct legal standard); Rompilla, supra, at 390 (reviewing Strickland prejudice de novo because the state-court decision did not reach the question). Those cases therefore offer no guidance with respect to whether a state court has unreasonably determined that prejudice is lacking. We have said time and again that “an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.” Richter, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 11) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if the Court of Appeals might have reached a different conclusion as an initial matter, it was not an unreasonable application of our precedent for the California Supreme Court to conclude that Pinholster did not establish prejudice.[Footnote 20] * * *
Footnote 1 Although the California Supreme Court initially issued an order asking the State to respond, it ultimately withdrew that order as “im- providently issued.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 302.
Footnote 2 A majority also “[s]eparately and independently” denied several claims, including penalty-phase ineffective assistance of counsel, as untimely, successive, and barred by res judicata. Id., at 300. The State has not argued that these procedural rulings constitute adequate and independent state grounds that bar federal habeas review.
Footnote 3 Justice Sotomayor argues that there is nothing strange about allowing consideration of new evidence under §2254(d)(1) because, in her view, it would not be “so different” from some other tasks that courts undertake. Post, at 13 (dissenting opinion). What makes the consideration of new evidence strange is not how “different” the task would be, but rather the notion that a state court can be deemed to have unreasonably applied federal law to evidence it did not even know existed. We cannot comprehend how exactly a state court would have any control over its application of law to matters beyond its knowledge. Adopting Justice Sotomayor’s approach would not take seriously AEDPA’s requirement that federal courts defer to state-court decisions and would effectively treat the statute as no more than a “ ‘mood’ that the Federal Judiciary must respect,” Terry Williams, 529 U. S., at 386 (opinion of Stevens, J.).
Footnote 4 If a prisoner has “failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,” §2254(e)(2) bars a federal court from holding an evidentiary hearing, unless the applicant meets certain statutory requirements. Footnote 5 Justice Sotomayor’s suggestion that Michael Williams “rejected” the conclusion here, see post, at 15, is thus quite puzzling. In the passage that she quotes, see ibid., the Court merely explains that §2254(e)(2) should be interpreted in a way that does not preclude a state prisoner, who was diligent in state habeas court and who can satisfy §2254(d), from receiving an evidentiary hearing.
Footnote 6 In Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U. S. 74 (2005) (per curiam), on which the Court of Appeals also relied, we made the same assumption. Id., at 79–80 (discussing the State’s “Holland argument”).
Footnote 7 Pinholster and Justice Sotomayor place great weight on the fact that §2254(d)(2) includes the language “in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” whereas §2254(d)(1) does not. See post, at 6–7. The additional clarity of §2254(d)(2) on this point, however, does not detract from our view that §2254(d)(1) also is plainly limited to the state-court record. The omission of clarifying language from §2254(d)(1) just as likely reflects Congress’ belief that such language was unnecessary as it does anything else.
Footnote 8 Justice Sotomayor’s argument that §2254(d)(1) must be read in a way that “accommodates” §2254(e)(2), see post, at 9, rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of §2254(e)(2). The focus of that section is not on “preserving the opportunity” for hearings, post, at 9, but rather on limiting the discretion of federal district courts in holding hearings. We see no need in this case to address the proper application of §2254(e)(2). See n. 20, infra. But see post, at 12 (suggesting that we have given §2254(e)(2) “an unnaturally cramped reading”).
Footnote 9 In all events, of course, the requirements of §§2254(a) through (c) remain significant limitations on the power of a federal court to grant habeas relief.
Footnote 10 Though we do not decide where to draw the line between new claims and claims adjudicated on the merits, see n. 11, infra, Justice Sotomayor’s hypothetical involving new evidence of withheld exculpatory witness statements, see post, at 9–10, may well present a new claim.
Footnote 11 The State does not contest that the alleged claim was adjudicated on the merits by the California Supreme Court, but it asserts that some of the evidence adduced in the federal evidentiary hearing fundamentally changed Pinholster’s claim so as to render it effectively unadjudicated. See Brief for Petitioner 28–31; Reply Brief for Petitioner 4–5; Tr. of Oral Arg. 18. Pinholster disagrees and argues that the evidence adduced in the evidentiary hearing simply supports his alleged claim. Brief for Respondent 33–37.
Footnote 12 The parties agree that the state-court record includes both the “allegations of [the] habeas corpus petition … and … ‘any matter of record pertaining to the case.’ ” In re Hochberg, 2 Cal. 3d 870, 874, n. 2, 471 P. 2d 1, 3–4, n. 2 (1970) (quoting Cal. Rule of Court 60), rejected on another ground by In re Fields, 51 Cal. 3d 1063, 1070, n. 3, 800 P. 2d 862, 866, n. 3 (1990); see Reply Brief for Petitioner 16–17; Tr. of Oral Arg. 45. Under California law, the California Supreme Court’s summary denial of a habeas petition on the merits reflects that court’s determination that “the claims made in th[e] petition do not state a prima facie case entitling the petitioner to relief.” In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 770, 855 P. 2d 729, 741–742 (1993). It appears that the court generally assumes the allegations in the petition to be true, but does not accept wholly conclusory allegations, People v. Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th 464, 474, 886 P. 2d 1252, 1258 (1995), and will also “review the record of the trial … to assess the merits of the petitioner’s claims,” Clark, supra, at 770, 855 P. 2d, at 742.
The specific contents of the state-court record depend on which of the two state habeas proceedings is at issue. One amicus curiae suggests that both are at issuethat is, Pinholster must prove that both California Supreme Court proceedings involved an unreasonable application of law under §2254(d)(1). See Brief for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation 26. By contrast, the most favorable approach for Pinholster would be review of only the second state habeas proceeding, the record of which includes all of the evidence that Pinholster ever submitted in state habeas. We have not previously ruled on how to proceed in these circumstances, and we need not do so here. Even taking the approach most favorable to Pinholster, and reviewing only whether the California Supreme Court was objectively unreasonable in the second state habeas proceeding, we find that Pinholster has failed to satisfy §2254(d)(1). Footnote 13 Counsel’s argument was persuasive enough to cause the trial court to hold a hearing and take testimony before denying the motion to exclude.
Footnote 14 Both parties agree that these billing records were before the California Supreme Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 45, 48–49.
Footnote 15 See Clerk’s Tr. 798 (entry on Jan. 13 for “phone call to defendant’s mother re medical history”); id., at 864 (entries on Feb. 21 for “Penal Code research on capital punishment”; Feb. 23 for “conference with defendant’s mother re childhood problems”; Feb. 25 for “Research on Pen. C. 190.3”; and Feb. 29 for “photocopying reports for appointed expert,” “Preparation of Declaration and Order for appointment of psychiatrist,” “Preparation order of visitation for investigator,” and “Further research on Pen. C. 190.3”). The time records for Dettmar unfortunately stop with Mar. 14, so we do not know what he did during the critical weeks leading up to the penalty phase on May 1.
Footnote 16 See id., at 869 (entries on Feb. 23 for “Conf. with Bernice Brasher, Pinholster’s mother”; and Feb. 25 for “Research re; epilepsy and conf. with nurse”); id., at 1160 (entries on Apr. 11 for “Start prep. for penalty phase”; Apr. 25 for “Prep. penalty phase and conf. with Mrs. Brashear”; and Apr. 26 for “Prep. penalty phase”).
Footnote 17 The Court of Appeals was not necessarily wrong in looking to other precedents of this Court for guidance, but “the Strickland test ‘of necessity requires a case-by-case examination of the evidence.’ ” Terry Williams, 529 U. S. 362, 391 (2000) (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 308 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)).
Footnote 18 Pinholster’s wife waived her spousal privilege to testify to this fact. She acknowledged that her testimony would be used to argue that her husband should be executed.
Footnote 19 Justice Sotomayor criticizes Brashear’s testimony as “self-interested,” post, at 31, but the whole premise of the family-sympathy defense is the family’s interest. She similarly makes much of the fact that the prosecutor “belittle[d]” Brashear’s testimony in closing argument. Post, at 33. We fail to see the point. Any diligent prosecutor would have challenged whatever mitigating evidence the defense had put on. And, we would certainly not expect the prosecutor’s closing argument to have described the evidence in the light most favorable to Pinholster. But see ibid., n. 26.
Footnote 20 Because Pinholster has failed to demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim based on the state-court record resulted in a decision “contrary to” or “involv[ing] an unreasonable application” of federal law, a writ of habeas corpus “shall not be granted” and our analysis is at an end. 28 U. S. C. §2254(d). We are barred from considering the evidence Pinholster submitted in the District Court that he contends additionally supports his claim. For that reason, we need not decide whether §2254(e)(2) prohibited the District Court from holding the evidentiary hearing or whether a district court may ever choose to hold an evidentiary hearing before it determines that §2254(d) has been satisfied.