Opinion ID: 3066183
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Recent Supreme Court Developments

Text: Regarding Deference In two recent decisions, Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.Ct. 770 (2011), and Johnson v. Williams, 133 S.Ct. 1088 (2013), the Supreme Court appears to have tightened the rule of deference with regard to all elements of a claim. In Harrington, the defendant petitioned for habeas relief, claiming that his counsel provided him with a constitutionally inadequate defense. 131 S. Ct. at 783. The California Supreme Court dismissed the habeas claim by summary order, giving no explanation for its determination. Id. The federal district court denied his federal habeas petition, and a three-judge panel of this court affirmed. Id. This Court, en banc, reversed. Id. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed our en banc decision granting habeas relief. Id. at 792. The Supreme Court held that when a state court’s order is unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the reasons for denial of federal relief, “it 20 AMADO V. GONZALEZ may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary.” Id. at 784–85. Accordingly, the Supreme Court said a federal habeas court “must determine what arguments or theories . . . could have supported” the state court’s rejection of the federal claim, and then must give deference to those arguments or theories under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Id. at 786. In Johnson, the defendant was found guilty of a murder in which a co-conspirator in a robbery killed the victim. 133 S. Ct. at 1092. On appeal, the defendant complained that the trial judge, in excusing a juror for bias because of the juror’s expressed intention not to follow the judge’s instructions about felony-murder, violated both the Sixth Amendment and an analogous provision of California law. Id. at 1092–93. The California Court of Appeal denied the defendant’s appeal on state-law grounds and, although citing a leading U.S. Supreme Court case, did not discuss the defendant’s argument under the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 1093. The defendant then sought federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id. The district court, applying AEDPA’s deferential standard, denied the defendant’s petition, but this court reversed, holding that since the state court had failed to discuss the Sixth Amendment, AEDPA deference did not apply. 133 S. Ct. at 1093–94. The Supreme Court reversed, id. at 1099, holding that where a state-court opinion addresses some but not all of a defendant’s claims, federal habeas courts should presume, as Harrington requires, that the state court opinion adjudicated AMADO V. GONZALEZ 21 the federal claims, as well as the state claims, on the merits. 133 S. Ct. at 1094–97.8