Document: 505 U.S. 277 112 S.Ct. 2482 120 L.Ed.2d 225 Ellis B. WRIGHT, Jr., Warden and Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of Virginia, Petitioners,v.Frank Robert WEST, Jr. No. 91-542. Argued March 24, 1992. Decided June 19, Syllabus A few weeks after a Virginia home was burglarized, over 15 the missing items were recovered from respondent West's home. At his trial on grand larceny charges, he admitted to prior felony conviction, but denied having stolen items, explaining that frequently bought sold merchandise at different flea markets. He offered no explanation for how had acquired any until cross-examination, when gave vague, evasive even contradictory answers; could not remember several major including television set coffee table; failed produce evidence corroborating story. West convicted. The State Supreme Court affirmed conviction petition writ habeas corpus, both times rejecting, inter alia, contention insufficient support finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On federal habeas, District also rejected contention. Appeals reversed ground standard Jackson v. 443 307, 319, 99 2781, 2789, 61 560—that is sufficient as matter due process if, "after viewing in light most favorable prosecution, rational trier fact have found essential elements crime doubt"—had been met. Held: judgment reversed, case remanded. 931 F.2d 262 (CA4 1991) Justice THOMAS, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE SCALIA, concluded regardless whether court should review state-court applications law deferentially or de novo, record contains more than enough conviction. repeatedly emphasizes deference owed sharply limited nature constitutional sufficiency review. against strong. jury entitled disbelieve uncorroborated confused testimony, discount credibility account take demeanor into account. permitted consider what it be perjured testimony affirmative guilt. Pp. 295-297. WHITE there under standard. P. 297. O'CONNOR, BLACKMUN STEVENS, supported need decide issue this case. 305-306. KENNEDY convince factfinder doubt Teague Lane, 489 288, 109 1060, 103 334 interpreted calling question settled principle mixed questions are subject novo corpus. 306-310. SOUTER sought benefit "new rule," thus claim barred 334. misapplied § commands, since, while rule "old" predated finality specific dictate which held unlawful. Although disregard Jackson, does follow Jackson's insufficiency apparent. has long recognized falsely explained possession recently property sustain possessor took goods, jury's rejection implies false. Virginia's accepted good backdrop general state less stringent rule. Thus, possible say jurists considered compatible with 310-316. J., announced delivered an opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., joined. WHITE, filed opinion concurring judgment. judgment, BLACKMUN, JJ., KENNEDY, SOUTER, opinions Donald R. Curry, Richmond, Va., petitioners. Maureen E. Mahoney, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae special leave Court. Steven H. Goldblatt, respondent. THOMAS SCALIA 1 In case, we must determine Fourth Circuit correctly applied our decision 560 (1979), concluding Frank insufficient, process, larceny. 2 * Between December 13 26, 1978, someone broke Westmoreland County, Angelo Cardova stole valued approximately $3,500. January 10, 1979, police conducted lawful search Gloucester wife. They discovered home, various electronic equipment (two sets player); articles clothing (an imitation mink coat name "Esther" embroidered it, silk jacket emblazoned "Korea 1970," pair shoes); decorations (several wood carvings mounted lobster); miscellaneous household objects (a mirror framed seashells, table, bar, sleeping bag some silverware). These $800, other, unspecified Cardova's approximate value $300. 3 charged Testifying own behalf, taken anything house. "a lot . merchandise" "several guys" "flea bargain places" where, according West, you buy things stolen" although "you never know it." App. 21. said many Ronnie Elkins, whom claimed known years. testified purchased one carvings, jacket, lobster, bar Elkins about $500. initially guessed, then twice positively asserted, sale occurred before 1, 1979. addition, $5 around His did make clear describing transaction two, other transactions between himself where occurred, markets.1 further entirely separate Goochland individual whose forgotten. Finally, second television, silverware. 4 Under then-applicable law, defined wrongful nonconsensual taking worth least $100, intent deprive owner permanently. See Va.Code 18.2-95 (1975); Skeeter Commonwealth, 217 Va. 722, 725, 232 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1977). permits inference person who fails explain, explains, exclusive thief. See, e.g., Moehring 223 564, 568, 290 891, 893 (1982); Best 222 387, 389, 282 16, 17 (1981). instructed jurors permissive inference, warned compromise their obligation acquit unless they established every element (see re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 25 368 (1970)).2 5 returned guilty verdict, received 10-year prison sentence. petitioned appeal, contending (among things) May 1980, refused petition—a disposition indicating without merit, see Saunders Reynolds, 214 697, 700, 204 421, 424 (1974). Seven years later, corpus same court, affidavit executed April 1987. renewed original contained argued alternative Elkins's affidavit, tended corroborate certain respects, constituted new entitling him trial. again relief. Eastern claims 6 reversed. (1991). As recognized, depends "whether, doubt." U.S., S.Ct., 2789 (emphasis original). Five considerations led conclude met: first, sooner two stolen; second, only third (measured value) West; third, house plain view, hidden away contraband; fourth, so "inherently implausible," if disbelieved, "fairly treated positive guilt"; fifth, (such fingerprints eyewitness testimony) mere possession. F.2d, 268-270. viewed "at most, neutral factor," id., 270, despite noting "confusion" details alleged purchases, 269, conceding first blush may itself seem incredible," n. 7. holding met, consideration previously otherwise. 7 After rehearing en banc equally divided Pet. Cert. 34-35, warden on, among questions, We granted certiorari, 502 1012, 656, 116 748 (1991), requested additional briefing afford determinations applying facts 1021, 672, 763 now reverse. II 8 statute entertain prisoner "only custody violation Constitution laws treaties United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). "dispose justice require." 2243. For much history, these bare guidelines predecessors reflect common-law seeking challenge jurisdiction rendered custody. Wood, 140 278, 285-287, 11 738, 741, 35 L.Ed. (1891) (Harlan, J.); Ex parte Watkins, 193, 202 (1830) (Marshall, C.J.). Gradually, began expand category deemed jurisdictional purposes. Siebold, 100 371, 377, 717 (1880) (court impose sentence unconstitutional statute); Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 176, 21 872 (1874) authorized statute). Next, recognize prisoners provided full fair opportunity litigate those claims. Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 91-92, 43 265, 267, 67 543 (1923); Mangum, 237 309, 335-336, 582, 590, 59 969 (1915). Before 1953, however, inverse remained true: absent defect, "habeas would lie [state] given adequate obtain courts." Fay Noia, 372 391, 459-460, 83 822, 860, 9 837 (1963) dissenting). generally Bator, Finality Criminal Law Federal Habeas Corpus Prisoners, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 441, 478-499 (1963). words, "absolute respect," Kuhlmann Wil- son, 477 436, 446, 106 2616, 2623, 91 364 (1986) (Opinion Powell, J.) added), reasonableness.3 absolute landmark Brown Allen, 344 443, 73 397, 97 469 (1953). There, "is res judicata " respect claims, 458, 408, all such hearing. Instead, held, district adjudication "has resulted satisfactory conclusion." Id., 463, 410. occasion explore detail "satisfactory" conclusion correct, opposed merely reasonable, because advanced fail courts' them reconsidered novo. 465-476, 411-416. Nonetheless, indicated courts enjoy discretion asserted habeas. 465, 411 ("As responsibilities protect persons rights, decline, facts, award legality detention determined, presented, highest jurisdiction").4 10 influential endorsed majority Court, Frankfurter fairly-litigated judgments. emphasized determination "binding" 506, involves pure ibid., "so-called questio[n]" requiring application fact, 507, 446. stated quite explicitly "prior guide [the] [of court] deciding upon appropriate course followed disposing application." 500, 443. Discussing specifically, noted "there judge, could, shut eyes consideration." 508, 446.5 subsequent cases, reaffirmed Brown's teaching "open collateral attack," Cuyler Sullivan, 446 335, 342, 1708, 1715, 64 333 (1980), ever considering "review" deferential. relief review, see, Strickland 466 668, 698, 104 2052, 2070, 80 674 (1984) (facts "clear" petitioner receive ineffective assistance counsel); Neil Biggers, 409 188, 201, 93 375, 382, 34 401 (1972) disclose "no substantial likelihood" subjected unreliable pretrial lineup); others, awarded deferential Brewer Williams, 430 405, 1232, 1243, 51 (1977) provide basis" valid waiver right Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 81 1639, 1644, 751 (1961) show "clear convincing" biased jury); yet remanded proper legal addressing question, Cuyler, supra, 350, 1719. cases qualified early citation proposition reexamine "independently," Townsend Sain, 293, 318, 745, 760, 770 (dictum), gradually come treat "subject plenary review" Miller Fenton, 474 104, 112, 445, 450, 88 405 (1985).6 12 contributed trend. violates find 317, 2788. particular deference" 323, 2791; 336, 9, 2798 (STEVENS, judgment) ("State judges familiar offenses better able evaluate claims"). Notwithstanding principles, apply rule, 324, 2791-2792, rather reviewing reasonableness. Ultimately, though, resolve conflicting statements Jackson. 324-326, 2791-2793.7 Despite apparent adherence implicitly questioned standard, recent retroactivity precedents. Penry Lynaugh, 492 302, 313-314, 2934, 2944, 256 (1989), analysis O'CONNOR plurality (1989). Teague, cannot criminal procedure become final direct appeal. 305-310, 1072-1075 J.). "new" "not dictated precedent existing time defendant's became final." 301, 1070 Butler McKellar, 494 407, 415, 110 1212, 1217, 108 347 (1990), definition includes rules "susceptible debate minds." reasonably seeks Butler, therefore cognizable Teague. "must defer court's rejecting patently unreasonable." 422, 1221 (Brennan, dissenting).8 14 premised view proceedings function writ, described 'a remedy designed substitute review.' 306, 1072 (quoting Mackey States, 667, 682-683, 1160, 1174-1175, 404 (1971) judgments part dissenting part)) ). STEVENS reasoned similarly stressed intended nor device merits trials," "to guard extreme malfunctions systems." 332, 5, 2796, (opinion judgment); Greer Miller, 483 768-769, 107 3102, 3110-3111, 618 (1987) judgment). Indeed, notion standards runs throughout jurisprudence. said, example, always retroactive pending Griffith Kentucky, 479 314, 320-328, 708, 711-716, 649 (1987), do guarantees counsel Douglas California, 353, 355-358, 814, 815-817, 811 (1963), Pennsylvania Finley, 481 551, 555, 1990, 1993, 95 539 (1987). enforced exclude obtained Amendment. Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 654-660, 1684, 1691-1694, 1081 (1961). Stone 428 489-496, 96 3037, 3050-3053, 49 1067 (1976). differences simply "entails significant costs." Engle Isaac, 456 107, 126, 102 1558, 1571, 71 783 (1982). Among things, '[i]t disturbs State's interest repose litigation, denies society punish offenders, intrudes sovereignty degree matched exercises judicial authority.' Duckworth Eagan, 195, 210, 2875, 2883, 166 (1989) (O'CONNOR, concurring) Harris Reed, 255, 282, 1038, 1053, 308 (KENNEDY, dissenting)). contexts, costs, well countervailing benefits, defining scope writ. Coleman Thompson, 501 ----, 111 2546, ---- - 115 640 (1991) (slip op., 19-26) (procedural default); McCleskey Zant, 499 1454, 1469-1472, 113 517 (abuse writ); 308-310, 1073-1075 (retroactivity); Wilson, 444-455, 2621-2628 (successive petitions); 491-492, 31, 3051, 31 (cognizability claims). 16 petitioners ask reconsider statement Fenton 450. By its terms, directly controlling, decided year contend, logic makes untenable. Petitioners argue reasonableness strikes balance purely strike well. Moreover, note itself, factual "presumed correct," can overcome "convincing evidence," eight statutorily enumerated exceptions present. 2254(d). It sense, assert, deferentially, prospect implicit concerns fully implicated "by old manner precedent." Stringer Black, 503 1130, 1135, 117 (1992) added) 4). reasons, invite us reaffirm judge not—and indeed not—"shut eyes" fact. Frankfurter, develops principal counterarguments: Congress codified amended 1966; necessary vindicate rights.9 far-reaching issues assuming Whatever Two four examination trial, nothing offer information acquire mention name. When pressed cross-examination contradicted supposedly seemingly answers questions. supra. whatsoever player, things. seller (who unidentified) unrelated (but roughly contemporaneous) transaction. supporting evidence, done business regular basis. 19 testimony. evaluating moreover, 19.2-269 (1990); Sadoski 219 1069, 254 testifying, neither And whatever Wilson 162 613, 620-621, 895, 898-899, 40 1090 (1896); States Zafiro, 945 881, 888 (CA7 (Posner, J.), cert. grounds, 1472, 617 (1992); Dyer MacDougall, 201 269 (CA2 1952) (L. Hand, 20 and, correspondingly, "all prosecution," original); prosecution affirmatively "rule out hypothesis except guilt," 326, 2792; "faced historical supports inferences presume appear record—that resolved conflicts favor resolution," ibid. standards, think Having claim, declined address basis newly-discovered evidence. 271, 9. properly us, decline here. consistent opinion. 22 ordered. because, rare exceptions, available time. During period discusses, Bill Rights understood prosecutions. protections afforded text authority notably Due Process Clause Fourteenth area procedure, guarantee hearing courts. Ponzi Fessenden, 258 254, 260, 42 310, 66 607 (1922) ("One accused government offended, that"). 23 propounding threshold requirement This evident just Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 107-108, 54 330, 333, 78 (1934) ("the presence defendant condition extent thwarted absence, only"); Twining New Jersey, 211 78, 110-111, 29 14, 53 (1908) ("Due requires assumes rights parties shall jurisdiction, notice parties. Subject fundamental conditions, up sustained laws, statutory judicially declared, regulating methods law") (citations omitted). fairly competent Caldwell Texas, 137 692, 224, 226, 816 (1891); 175 172, 175, 77, 44 119 (1899). 24 cited THOMAS—Moore (1923), (1915)—demonstrate absence relevant Constitution; prerequisite claim. Both dominated angry mob inconsistent process. both, nevertheless appellate correct error. Frank; Moore, not. "full hearing" applicable cases; instead defines reviewed 266-267. Second, quotes Powell's (1986), context. Ante, 285-286. Powell committing accorded respect" 19th century, inquiry court. Kuhlmann, 2623 expressing erroneous today ascribes him, complete 1953. 26 Third, errs implying (1953), doctrine strictly 287. reached Salinger Loisel, 265 230, 519, 521, 68 989 (1924). Even break ground: observed common Carter McClaughry, 183 365, 378, 181, 186-187, 46 236 (1902), Spencer, 228 652, 658, 33 709, 710, 57 1010 (1913). Salinger, 521. Brown. Waley Johnston, 316 101, 105, 62 964, 966, 86 1302 (1942); Darr Burford, 339 200, 214, 70 587, 595, 94 761 (1950). like involved initial filings prisoners. 27 Fourth, understates certainty Allen law. 287-288. passages "satisfactory conclusion," give weight determinations, ante, 287, discussing becomes reading section Brown, 460-465, 409-411, "Right Plenary Hearing." turned primary presented—whether Amendment restriction service taxpayers—the answered hint 467-474, 412-416. discussed Frankfurter's endorsed. recognizing factfinding repeated determining wrote: "Where ascertainment dispose calls interpretation significance Judge exercise blend values. so-called principles duty judge." added; concluded: "The last though procedurally fairness, misconceived right." 447. Fifth, incorrectly states raised 289. contrary, very THOMAS. (1961), clearly 'mixed judge.' was, therefore, independently [the prejudice]." 723, 1643 proceeded employ precisely 723-728, 1643-1645. "[a]lthough may, reliably findings judge's independently." 30 (1972), addressed identification procedures unconstitutionally suggestive using used appeal: likelihood irreparable misidentification.' 198, 381 Simmons 390 384, 967, 971, 1247 (1968)). (1977), waived counsel. "the which, words Mr. 'application found. .' 403, 1242 J.)). employed 404, 1242. 32 exceeded decision. 341, 1714. presented presumption correctness 2254(d), reconsidering "application case." 1715. erred stating principle, 345-350, 1716-1719. (1984), "[t]he governing ineffectiveness appeal motions [N]o ought made proceedings." 697-698, 2070. distinguished defer, defer. (1985), "an unbroken line coming lower forecloses Appeals' 'voluntariness' confession something independent To list add following, Leyra Denno, 556, 558-561, 74 716, 717-719, 98 948 (1954); ex rel. Jennings Ragen, 358 276, 277, 79 321, 322, 296 (1959); Rogers 365 534, 546, 735, 742, 760 (1961); Gideon Wainwright, 339-345, 792, 794-797, 799 (1963); Pate Robinson, 383 384-386, 836, 841-842, 815 (1966); Sheppard Maxwell, 384 349-363, 1507, 1515-1523, 600 McMann Richardson, 759, 766-774, 1441, 1446-1450, (1970); Barker Wingo, 407 514, 522-536, 92 2182, 2188-2195, 101 (1972); Lego Twomey, 477, 482-490, 619, 623-627, Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 480-490, 2593, 2600-2605, 484 Gagnon Scarpelli, 778, 781-791, 1756, 1759-1764, 36 656 (1973); Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 222-249, 2041, 2045-2059, 854 Manson Brathwaite, 432 98, 109-117, 2243, 2250-2254, (1977); Watkins Sowders, 449 345-349, 654, 657-659, 549 (1981); Jones Barnes, 463 750-754, 3308, 3312-3314, 77 987 (1983); Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 435-442, 3138, 3147-3152, 82 317 (1984); Moran Burbine, 475 412, 420-434, 1140-1147, 89 410 (1986); Kimmelman Morrison, 383-387, 2574, 2587-2589, 305 Maynard Cartwright, 486 356, 360-365, 1853, 1857-1860, (1988); 201-205, 2878-2881, (1989); Estelle McGuire, 475, 480-481, 385 5-6). There others. Sixth, misdescribes (1979). 290. respondents proposed discusses today, thought 2791. expressly proposal. Ibid. adhered 2791-2792. Seventh, mischaracterizes "question[ing] th[e] review] questions." 291. establish "deferential" all. judged existence final. Penry, 2944; 1070. create regard rules. 37 counts meaningfully binding Cf. 695, 1181, (inquiry really 'new' well-established govern closely analogous part) (internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis added). characterized "reasonable jurists" disagree result precedent, Sawyer Smith, 497 227, 234, 2822, 2827, 193 establishes "objective," necessarily mean new. 1140, (1992). If proffered distinction pre-existing change force precedent's underlying applies, meaningful, deviation reasonable. 38 So, says "defer" misleading. practice, phrasing" not, "phrasing mirrors thought, [and] important phrasing obscure true court." 501, convincingly demonstrates, deference; evaluation order distinguishable. spend effort scrutinizing assume properly. 39 Eighth, suggests otherwise, incompatible maxim "give great conclusions coequal judiciary," persuasive, well-reasoned circuit jurisdictions. concerning implications closest get "case point," especially valuable reason. But past incorrect allowed stand courts, is. one-sentence summary respondent's arguments, 294, legislation during years, occasions adopting along lines suggested each Congress' position, move construction conferred statute. acknowledges, "far-reaching," 295, 41 I enter reasons point proceedings. answer difficult inquiry, agree that, Court's adoption settled. seems real dividing my colleagues casts (1985). curiae, arises. Brief ("The surely survived decisions progeny); Amicus Curiae ("Prior [and later ], often corpus"). vindication require rulings proceeding, might collision line. select expense other. purpose adopted means implementing creates conflict misreading interpret resting necessity determinations. retroactivity. 1075 ("we adopt Harlan's review"). sure, distinguishing ones turns precedents sense lose sight raised: upset accordance interpretations prisoner's earlier Term: 45 "When based interpreting second. First, determined relied yes exception petitioner. If, announce inquire granting novel setting, thereby extending precedent. interests finality, predictability, comity jurisprudence undermined equal invocation 222, 227-228, (citation saying since close position judge. That thrust deference. work circumstances, findings. Rushen Spain, 464 114, 120, 453, 456, 267 (1983) (per curiam ) (noting far answer" question). Deference kind termed interest, underlies served subjecting regime changing once deficient terms. recognition Saffle Parks, 484, 488, 1257, 415 (1990). 47 bear announcement Whether Stringer, large case-by-case tolerate number themselves example. terms provides facts. will variations Where beginning application, myriad infrequent yields forges 48 announced" proceedings, 313, engage Collins Youngblood, 37, 2715, Therefore, resolution oddity reversing fact-specific arguable effect undercutting elsewhere infer theft unexplained goods. constitute unusual addressed. premises, added justification retaining reason abandon it. gives assurance use conformed existing. With safeguard place, importance exercised within sphere. 50 foregoing And, mentioned, brings Teague-barred. doubt; concur 52 While 291-293, reach issue. developed pose merits. 40-41, 329, 2952, 300, 1069 (plurality). begins West. go further.1 narrow here relevant, conducting benefit, 1216, (plurality), being 'dictated final,' (1990) (plurality)) Put differently, new-rule enquiry asks "whether prisoner's] felt compelled prisoner] required Constitution." 1260, Or, put differently again, [might have] disagree[d]" steps next, development grounds 2827; 1217 ("susceptible minds"). 55 reflects "interests finality." 308, 1073 One incentive ' "conduct standards," 413, (plurality)), 'new rule' principle" recognizes "validat[ing] good-faith shown contrary decisions." 414, (citing Leon, 897, 918-919, 3405, 3418-3419, 677 (1984)). 56 crux invoked, then, depends. survive too general, identifying age simple comparing dates, passing requisite specificity analytical care. response high level generality illustrated cases. Arizona Roberson, 675, 2093, 704 (1988), Butler's Roberson Fifth forbids interrogation suspect requests counsel, request occurs investigating different, crime. 682, 2098. invoke Roberson's "merely Edwards [v. Arizona, 451 1880, 378 (1981) ]," suspicion crime, stop questioning invokes 484-485, 1884-1885, slightly facts." 1217. argument, "would illogical grudging extend Roberson." 1218. 58 Likewise, Sawyer, Mississippi, 472 320, 105 2633, 231 Sawyer's Eighth prohibits death sentencer believe responsibility appropriateness rests elsewhere." 328-329, 2639. "dictated reliability capital sentencing," 236, 2828, final, Eddings Oklahoma, 455 869, (1982), Lockett 438 586, 2954, 973 (1978), them. [Teague ] test meaningless generality. Anderson Creighton, 635, 639, [107 3034, 3038, 523] ('[I]f "clearly law" generality, [p]laintiffs convert immunity plainly virtually unqualified liability alleging extremely abstract rights')." 2828 (internal-quotation brackets 60 invoked certainly "lent Caldwell," 'it [Eddings compel [petitioner] seeks,' (second original) Saffle, 491, 1261). sum, mean, course, identical own. extant unlawfulness 640, 3039, 523 overruled Commonwealth's objection petitioner's purposes 1980. 262, 265-267 1991). surmounted Teague' hurdle, went consisted one-third goods coupled [West's] purchases interval." 268. Applied context, unadorned norm translated Cosby Jones, 682 1373 (CA11 1982), unconvincingly more, prove theft, weighed exactly asking five questions: (1) Was recent, relative crime"? (2) possession? (3) Did attempt conceal items? (4) explanation, "even discredited jury, 'so implausible demonstrably false rise government' "? (5) conviction? 268 Cosby, 1383, 19). 63 Applying factors either advantageous West: elapsed testimony,2 interval; measured value, belongings surfaced possession; home; exhibited confusion exact circumstances purchases[,] maintained markets, inherently .;" finally, 269-270. here, assessed entirety persuade ." 270. commands unduly elevated antedated trier, favorably doubt, Montgomery 221 190, 352, 353 (1980); Henderson 215 811, 812-813, 213 782, 783-784 Bazemore 210 351, 170 774, 776 (1969); Bright Va.App. 248, 251, 356 444 concerned rule's prong. rejected, false.3 portion attack suffices identify virtue sense. utterly lies got thief them, surprise Bishop 227 164, 169, 313 390, 393 Inge 360, 366, 563, 568 insupportable, 65 ground, respectfully quality matters best appreciated example: "Q Are market? "A Well, didn't market, sir. Whose they? Elkins. All him? can't Which say, don't inventory. Can tell me Elkins? Yes, am sure can. ones? platter. How sea shell mirror? sir, so. that? Newport News market." 21-22. want your sell individuals Tell market Richmond. You Gloucester. Elkins' one. Didn't market. [sic ]. items. will, day remember. 1. it? stuff Gloucester, News." 26-27. instruction read: "If belie[ve] $100.00 F. C[a]rdova, thereafter personal defendant, raise thief; whole leads committed guilty." 34. Several instructions burden Commonwealth material offense defendant." offers three criticisms history none convincing. she contends full-and-fair litigation (1915), define violation. post, 297-299. violate Frank, (the review), reasonably, "because Frank's unbiased tribunal," 476, 3043, expressly, 90-91, 266, ordered domination "perfunctory treatment" "was acceptable corrective process." 858-859 dissenting); Harv.L.Rev., 488-489. mischaracterize views 1915 299. recounted summarize above. Rose Mitchell, 545, 2993, 739 "modestly expanded" "scope writ" "encompass proceeding." 580, 3012-3013 (Powell, Similarly, (1973), extended corpus" permit applicant claims." 255-256, 2062 (concurring opinion). suggest 1953 criticizes failure acknowledge (1924), describes hold "res habeas." Post, preclusive petitions prisoner. fault ourselves limiting focus latter relevance, hardly advances advocated acknowledging judicata, "may considered, controlling weight." 231, 521 inclusion passage Hearing" 299-301. introduction section, 460, contentions "that error heard argument added)). issue, denial whenever proceeding (as did), factfinding. 'must 300 446). easily reconciled consideration" reconciled, assumption defend detail, reasonableness, squarely foreclose disagreement quickly came "independently"; questions; appeared categories 1985. 301-302. her discussion leading through refute observations evidently disagrees—that enough, matter, choice outcome determinative. asserts "expressly rejected" "deferential characterizes "very one" urged 303 2791). What proposal "should foreclosed" "appellate evidence." determination. understand petitioners' deference," 303. endorsing deference, lost latter, progeny "did all." 303-304. contends, prohibit criterion ones, difficulty retroactivity, dispute O'CONNOR's suggestion difference, phrasing.' 304 disagree, constitutes rule" new, "can 304. "properly." 305. Our precedents, validity minds," jurists," insulates 'reasonable, precedents.' 1217); ); validate precedents"). bars "properly," highlight enact, bills introduced explicitly. 305; Senator Biden et al. Amici 10-16 (discussing proposals). task, construe statutes enacted. 1966. Stat. 1104-1105. grave doubts post-1966 legislative construing provisions, 'the form hazardous inferring one.' Consumer Product Safety Comm'n GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 102, 117, 2051, 2061, 766 quoting Price, 361 304, (1960). Compare Sullivan Finkelstein, 496 617, 628, 8, 2658, 2665, 563 (acknowledging usual difficulties inherent relying history") 632, 2667 (SCALIA, ("Arguments arguments antecedent futurity, seriously"). djQ deny amply 295-296, was. join, sufficiently write separately express THOMAS' discussion, 285-295, pre-1953 285. governed Clause. Because ends reaching O'CONNOR. overlooked 25-27. accurate estimate lapse weeks. "in prosecution." 2789.

Category: 0