Opinion ID: 799181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: role of new evidence

Text: Post-trial, Detrich developed the record through Dr. Briggs plus additional, though essentially duplicative, evidence from his family. Now, in this habeas proceeding, he not only wants a redo and brush up on Dr. Briggs's testimony, he wants to bring in a host of other experts on a claim that he already presented to the state post-conviction court. In light of my analysis as to Detrich's inability to pass through the § 2254(d) bar, I would not proceed with new evidence. But even with the benefit of the new evidence that the district court permitted before having the benefit of Pinholster, the district court concluded after extensive analysis that Detrich did not prove[] that he suffers from a mental impairment which [was] a `major contributing cause' to his conduct at the time of the crime, that he ha[d] not discovered significant new or more weighty mitigation than was considered by the sentencing judge, and that [e]ven if Petitioner is correct that no deference is owed under the AEDPA, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland.  I agree. Ultimately, Detrich does not present a new claim, previously undiscoverable evidence, suppressed evidence, evidence ignored by the state court, or a myriad of other circumstances that could qualitatively strengthen his assertions of prejudice. His piling on of new evidence does not alter either the weight or the conclusions drawn from the state court record. I respectfully dissent.