Document: 127 S. Ct. 2842 (2007) Scott Louis PANETTI, Petitioner, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. No. 06-6407. Supreme Court United States. Argued April 18, 2007. Decided June 28, *2847 Greg Abbott, Attorney General Texas, Kent C. Sullivan, First Assistant, General, Eric J.R. Nichols, Deputy for R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor Rance L. Craft, William Davis, Brantley Starr, Assistant Solicitors Tina J. Dettmer, Austin, Respondent. Keith Hampton, Gregory W. Wiercioch, San Francisco, California, Petitioner. Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion Court. "[T]he Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from carrying out sentence death upon prisoner who is insane." Ford Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 409-410, 106 2595, 91 Ed. 2d 335 (1986). The prohibition applies despite prisoner's earlier competency to be held responsible committing crime and tried *2848 it. Prior findings do not foreclose proving he incompetent executed because his present mental condition. Under Ford, once makes requisite preliminary showing that current state would bar execution, Amendment, applicable States under Due Process Clause Fourteenth entitles him an adjudication determine These determinations are governed by substantive federal baseline set down in Ford. Panetti, referred here as petitioner, was convicted sentenced court. After trial court execution date, petitioner made substantial competent executed. rejected claim incompetency on merits. Filing petition writ habeas corpus District Western claimed again condition barred execution; forth standard different one advanced State; prior state-court proceedings issue were insufficient satisfy procedural requirements mandated denied these assertions argued, addition, courts lacked jurisdiction hear petitioner's claims. We conclude we have statutory authority adjudicate claims raises application; find failed provide procedures which entitled Constitution; appellate employed improperly restrictive test when it considered therefore reverse judgment Appeals Fifth Circuit remand case further consideration. I On morning 1992 awoke before dawn, dressed camouflage, drove home estranged wife's parents. Breaking front-door lock, entered house and, front wife daughter, shot killed mother father. He took daughter hostage night surrendering police. Tried capital murder 1995, sought represent himself. ordered psychiatric evaluation, indicated suffered fragmented personality, delusions, hallucinations. 1 Ohio App. 9-14. evaluation noted had been hospitalized numerous times disorders. Id., at 10; see also id., 222. Evidence later revealed doctors prescribed medication disorders that, expert, difficult person suffering extreme psychosis even tolerate. See 233 ("I can't imagine anybody getting dose waking up two three days. You cannot take kind if you close normal without absolutely being put out"). Petitioner's described psychotic episode she filed 1986 seeking extraordinary relief courts. 38-40. She explained become convinced devil possessed their effort cleanse surroundings, buried number valuables next engaged other rituals. 39. Petitioner nevertheless found waive counsel. At *2849 guilty reason insanity. During behavior standby counsel "bizarre," "scary," "trance-like." 26, 21, 22. According attorney, both private jury evident "mental incompetence," 26; 22-23, net effect this dynamic render "truly judicial farce, mockery self-representation," 26. There evidence record, moreover, indicate stopped taking antipsychotic few months trial, 339, 345, rejection medical advice appears, has continued day with brief exception, Brief 16-17. expert testimony, failing tends exacerbate underlying dysfunction. 16, n. 12; 195, 228. And uncontested less than after death, appointment 15, 10. It therefore, only worsened since start trial. death. challenged conviction direct appeal through proceedings. requests relief. Panetti State, 72,230 (Crim. App., Dec. 3, 1997); Ex parte 37,145-01 (Crim.App., May 20, 1998). This twice certiorari. 525 848, 119 121, 142 97 (1998); 524 914, 118 2314, 141 156 (1998). pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Texas. His rejected, Court, Johnson, Cause A-99-CV-260-SS (2001), Circuit, Cockrell, 73 Fed.Appx. 78 (2003) (judgt.order), certiorari, Dretke, 540 1052, 124 811, 157 703 (2003). Among issues raised course stand did argue, however, illness rendered October 31, 2003, Judge Stephen B. Ables 216th Judicial Gillespie County, date February 5, 2004. Order Setting Execution 3310; 3310. December 10, motion Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 46.05 (Vernon Supp. Pamphlet 2006). claimed, first time, due judge hearing. When attempted challenge ruling, dismissed lack jurisdiction, indicating review determination determined incompetent. 74,868 (Jan. 2004) (per curiam). returned court, where another stay execution. *2850 4, 2004, stayed "allow reasonable period time consider [petitioner's] state." Case A-04-CA-042-SS, 113-114, 116. it, Renewed Motion To Determine Competency Be Executed (hereinafter Competency). Attached letter declaration individuals, psychologist law professor, interviewed while row new evidence, according counsel, demonstrated understand reasons about absence transcript, point altogether clear. make necessary recount history some detail. Based docket entries parties' filings appears following occurred. parties participate telephone conference 9, discuss status case. followed directive instructing submit, names health experts should appointing 46.05(f). ibid. ("If determines defendant incompetency, shall order least examine defendant"). gave until 20 submit any motions concerning advised hold same date. Defendant's Reconsider 3310, pp. 1-2 (Mar. Reconsider). 19, 10 related They included transcription proceedings, hearing comporting process funds hire expert. Transcribe All Proceedings Related Determination Article Ensure That "Final Hearing" Comports With Procedural Requirements 3310 Ensure); Parte Prepayment Funds Hire Mental Health Expert Assist Defense its scheduled conference. called courthouse office day. Counsel then County Attorney, informed attorneys week cancelling appoint input parties. 2. 23, received order, dated advising p. (Feb. 2004), 59. 25, informal conference, motions, others court-appointed completed evaluations. 3. March explaining delayed *2851 ruling moot. 1. no indication responded motion. Concluding "knows executed, will result death," "has ability executed," alleged uncooperative bizarre calculated design: "Mr. deliberately persistently chose control manipulate our interview situation," they claimed. 75. maintained "could answer questions relevant legal ... willing so." Ibid. sent including Michael Gross, 14, said: "Dear Counsel: "It evaluations performed [the experts] [petitioner] accordance standards Code Procedure. matters wish considered, please file them papers get me copies 5:00 p.m. 2004." filing "Objections Experts' Report, Investigator, Appointment Counsel, (May 24, Objections Report). In criticized methodology conclusions experts; asserted need own criticisms report "by necessity limited," 1; asked rule outstanding counsel; requested more general matter, thus far comply mandates response, closed released short identifying submitted "[b]ased aforesaid doctors' reports, finds show, preponderance executed." Regarding 99. mention or filings. Appeals, background leads matter now us. resolution January granted reconsider, funds. evidentiary hearing, testimony psychiatrist, psychologists, all well psychologists correctional officers, respondent. 117-135, 362-363; 136-336. describe substance experts' detail opinion. September 29, application concluded *2852 46.05; "constitutionally inadequate" light Ford; reviewed deferring court's finding competency. 401 F. 702, 706, 705-706 (W.D.Tex.2004). shown defined precedent. 712. "Ultimately," explained, "the requires know fact impending factual predicate execution." 711. affirmed, 448 F.3d 815 (C.A.5 2006), 549 ___, 852, 166 682 (2007). II jurisdiction. second gatekeeping provisions 2244(b)(2), "[a] presented successive section dismissed" except certain, narrow circumstances. §§ 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). maintains direction 2244, application. Its argument straightforward: "[Petitioner's] application, fully finally adjudicated merits, raise claim," result, "[his] subsequent claim, `second successive' application" terms 2244(b)(2). Supplemental Respondent contends, brought 2244's must dismissed. 4-6 (citing 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B)). acknowledges Ford-based claims, ripe run petition. 6. prisoners raising Stewart Martinez-Villareal, 523 637, 1618, 140 849 (1998), explains, permitted becomes preserved State's approach contemplating future could preserve means. force. results produce, show flaws. As "interpretation correct, implications practice reaching seemingly perverse." U.S., 644, 1618. A faced options: forgo opportunity court; (which generally within year ruling), though premature. dilemma apply conditions indicative but those early sign illness. risk deteriorations state. conscientious defense obliged unripe (and, many cases, meritless) each every counterintuitive add *2853 burden imposed courts, applicants, States, clear advantage any. there interpretation does produce distortions inefficiencies. phrase "second successive" self-defining. takes full meaning law, decisions predating enactment Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214. Slack McDaniel, 529 473, 486, 120 1595, 146 542 (2000) supra); Felker Turpin, 518 651, 664, 116 2333, 135 827 (1996). declined interpret referring applications successively address already See, e.g., Slack, 487, 1595 (concluding judgment, failure exhaust remedies); (indicating "pre-AEDPA govern[ed]" implying reach AEDPA); supra, 645. Our 2244 Martinez-Villareal illustrative. set. asserted, inter alia, citing among holdings, premature; affirmed ruling. obtained warrant filed, claim. argued "already `fully-litigated petition, plain 2244(b) treated successive.'" 643, contention. While "may prisoner] accept were, "two separate applications, [with] necessarily subject 2244(b)." instead particular circumstances treat single "was earlier, undoubtedly reviewable, relief." holding resolve jurisdictional question instant applicability "where initial application." 645, Yet Court's willingness look "implications practice" interpreting informs analysis here. conclude, accord precedent, Congress intend AEDPA addressing petitions govern unusual posture here: soon ripe. *2854 conclusion confirmed AEDPA's purposes. statute's design "further principles comity, finality, federalism." Miller-El 537 322, 337, 123 1029, 154 931 (internal quotation marks omitted). Cf. Day McDonough, 547 198, 205-206, 126 1675, 164 376 (2006) ("The statute limitation promotes efficiency conservation resources, safeguards accuracy judgments requiring constitutional record fresh, lends finality time" omitted)). purposes, practical effects AEDPA. particularly so petitioners "run risk" proposed "forever losing unexhausted claims." Rhines Weber, 544 269, 275, 125 1528, 161 440 (2005). Castro 375, 381, 786, 778 "[w]e recognize[d] gravity [the] problem" posed exhausted, difficulty [this problem has] district alike." 276, 1528. ensure "solution [was] compatible purposes." resisted "produce troublesome results," "create anomalies," "close doors class such Congress' intent." 380, 786. Williams Taylor, 420, 437, 1479, 435 (2000); Johnson 295, 308-309, 1571, (2005); Duncan Walker, 533 167, 178, 121 2120, 150 251 (2001); cf. Granberry Greer, 481 129, 131-134, 107 1671, 95 (1987). An empty formality neither respects limited resources available nor encourages exhaustion remedies. Duncan, 2120. Instructing premature colorable conserve "reduc[e] piecemeal litigation," "streamlin[e] proceedings." Burton Stewart, 793, 797, 628 curiam) concern implicated, none possible approaches able imminent. 644-645 (acknowledging unable filing). last-minute frivolous designed delay executions can regular course. requirement threshold showing, instance, will, action allowed proceed. is, actions constituted abuse writ, concept cases. Felker, 2333 ("[AEDPA's] restrictions constitute modified res judicata rule, restraint what `abuse *2855 writ'"). contrary, remain stages 644-645, 1618; (suggesting appropriate, wait claim); (remanding Ford's petition); Barnard Collins, 13 871, 878 1994) ("[O]ur research indicates reported decision circuit competency-to-be-executed grounds writ"). McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 489-497, 111 1454, 113 517 (1991). usual case, otherwise survive bar. are, exceptions. hesitant construe statute, implemented federalism, manner require often, factually unsupported) mere formality, benefit party. properly III Amendments Constitution, elaborated certain provided unreasonable clearly established law; 2254(d) misapplication allows federal-court deference decision. agree due. incompetency. to, things, adequate means response solicited reached process, notwithstanding counsel's sustained effort, diligence, compliance orders. error, unencumbered normally requires. identifies measures alleges four-Justice plurality follows: "Although condemned enjoy presumptions accorded yet sentenced, lost protection Constitution altogether; renders timing contingent establishment fact, *2856 high regard truth befits affecting life human being. Thus, ascertainment sanity lawful calls stringent demanded aspect proceeding." 411-412, 2595. Powell's concurrence, addressed procedure, offered holding. majority opinion, narrower controls. Marks 430 188, 193, 990, 51 260 (1977). constitutes "clearly established" purposes sets minimum states follows. Once "a insanity," afforded includes "fair hearing" fundamental fairness. 426, 424, 2595 (opinion concurring part judgment) "opportunity heard," omitted), constitutionally acceptable procedure may formal trial," 427, example why deficient, Powell "appear[ed] solely basis examinations state-appointed psychiatrists." "Such invites arbitrariness error preventing affected offering contrary inadequacies examinations." precise limits imposes area." observed "should leeway best balances various interests stake" met "basic requirements" required process. basic include "evidence differ examination." protections "substantial insanity." Competencya disputed party, 46.05(f), verified independent record. pointed observations incorporated, Competency, references extensive dysfunction refused transcribe multiple requesting extent complete favorable light, inadequacy *2857 materials repeated occasions conveyed information turned true; significant update providing notice petitioner; keep opportunity, any, strong violated 46.05(k). If did, violation framework undermines reliance might place assertion stake." also, 16. What more, issued implied psychiatrists appointed precisely sort warned "invit[e] error," additional impermissible Constitution: experts. mailed May. report, allegations suggesting due, part, deliberate rather warranted response. Report 13, 14 told letter, "any considered" week. renewed context sense: said request mental-health evaluation. justified relying representation provides of, "final hearing." 46.05(k); Caldwell, 58 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (confirming "legislature codified dictates enacting precursor 46.05]" "[t]he whether conduct discretion court" incompetency). Had managed procure assistance experts, pro bono previously was, event, refrain procuring submitting waiting timely *2858 assurances. But simply ended matter. heard. requires, minimum, allow meant counterweight receive rudimentary procedures, discovery cross-examination witnesses, cases Clause. clear, deficiencies identified rights. B denial rests implicit finding: described, reconciled controlling stated mean reasonable. "require nearly identical pattern applied." Carey Musladin, 649, 656, 482 (slip op., 2) (KENNEDY, J., judgment). Nor prohibit principle involves facts "different announced." Lockyer Andrade, 538 63, 76, 1166, 155 144 recognizes, applied manner. 362, 1495, 389 (finding involving Strickland Washington, 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674 (1984)). guide reviewing faced, here, cannot, standard, support AEDPA, grant relief, relevant, "adjudication [a] merits resulted involved law. dependent antecedent 2254(d)(1) satisfied. Wiggins Smith, 539 510, 534, 2527, 471 (performing Strickland's prong law); 527-529, 2527 *2859 ultimate reject ineffective-assistance-of-counsel based second). Williams, 395-397, 1495; Early Packer, 8, 263 (2002) preclude either reasoning [or] contradicts [our cases]"). Here, factfinding relied "not reasonably correct results" or, appeared "seriously inadequate truth." 423-424, (Powell, IV brings us asks resolve: permits whose deprives capacity [he] punishment crime." 31. helps frame issue. Four witnesses testified behalf One problems "schizo-affective disorder," 143, resulting "genuine delusion" understanding 157. delusion recast "part spiritual warfare... between demons forces darkness God angels light." 149. although "that saying [it wishes] execute [his] murder[s]," believes earnest "sham" wants "to stop preaching." similar strength sincerity "fixed delusion." 203; 202, 231-232, 333. beliefs 240, 247, 304, perceived concepts times, "clear lucid," 243; 244, 312, acknowledged problems, 239, 245, 308. rebuttal witness reconcile testimony: "Well, first, somebody schizophrenic, doesn't diminish cognitive ability.... Instead, situation whereand call schizophrenia thought disorder[]the logical integration reality connection thoughts disrupted, stimulus comes in, analyzed processed rational, logical, linear way, gets scrambled tangential, circumstantial, symbolic really way. That's essence schizophrenic .... Now, they're dealing someone who's familiar [in] feel like safer, enclosed environment sorts interactions lucid *2860 whereas extended conversation loaded material reflect severity illness." 328-329. 203 unmedicated individual "at times" ordinary "it depends [whether discussion concerns individual's] fixed delusional system"). short, much suffers severe delusions. 157, 149, 202-203, 328-329, 333; 136-353. inquiry delusions not. holding, flawed aware "`that [is] going executed,'" F.3d, 819 (quoting Barnard, 877); 818 (discussing 421-422, judgment)). end, committed murders; second, executed; third, given commission crimes question. 817. precedent ends regards demonstrating foreclosed establishing seeks employ: obstructs rational 817-818. "[b]ecause `awareness,' term used synonymous `rational understanding,' [petitioner,] sufficient establish 821. view Appeals' too afford Amendment. opinions acknowledged, discussed level generality; wrote himself articulated specific criteria. portion Marshall's constituting (the joined) express "places restriction power insane prisoner." 405, foundation "[T]oday, before, seriously retributive value executing comprehension singled stripped right Similarly, natural abhorrence civilized societies killing come grips conscience deity still vivid today. intuition of-fends humanity evidently shared across Nation. Faced widespread sovereign power, compelled *2861 Writing four Justices, Marshall "one prevents comprehending penalty implications." 417, Powell, "forbids unaware suffer it," 422, treats belief system irrelevant knows 2d, 712 beliefseven appreciate executiondo bear `knows execution' Amendment"); 711-712. nowhere "comprehen[sion]" "aware[ness]" impair anything, suggests opposite. Explaining against sanity, rationales, recognition offends humanity," 407, 2595; "provides others," ibid.; uncharitable dispatch offender into world, fit omitted); "madness punishment," serves purpose, 408. Considering lastwhether retribution servedit potential recognize last community whole, surviving family friends victim, affirm culpability serious imposed. offense objective vindication question, distorted awareness little relation whole. overcome met. logic rationales fail align distinctions drawn Appeals. Whether formulated "comprehen[d] reasons" "unaware [he is] then, taken inconsistent deems respect announced imminent 819, 821, opposed real vindicate. *2862 likewise elsewhere discussions common standards, proposition automatically identify rationale latter. deny define. ignore prisoners, implicated decision, punished account stemming competence presumes "normal," "rational," layperson's terms. Someone atrocious callous unrepentant; self-centered devoid compassion sense guilt; adept transferring blame colloquial sense, touch reality. Those mind, compared criminal population large, contends lie inquiry. beginning doubt misanthropic personality amoral character. disorder. submission severe, documented source gross purpose sentenced. argument, hold, considered. flaws pronounced disregard psychological words judge, "fundamental refuse nature mistake logic. Gross disorder link removed serve proper purpose. derive broadly identify, strict inflicted. Although attempt governing determinations. informative be, how affect analysis. overseeing development making findings, itself bound analyze example, "difficult issue" allegedly interfering behind 712, refrained definitive *2863 matters, 709. (identifying Dr. Mark Cunningham "believes league evil conspired him" "does lawfully authority," refraining setting accurate characterization mindset). significance (disregarding Cunningham's precedent). see, 191-197, 216-218, 234-237, 321-323, press course, developed improper. amplify precise. decide complexity addressed, probative, problems. underpinnings evaluated remand. physicians, psychiatrists, field clarify subject's perception deemed American Psychological Association et al. Amici Curiae 17-19 ways inform determinations). conducting Roper Simmons, 543 551, 560-564, 1183, Atkins Virginia, 536 311-314, 122 2242, 153 (2002); 406-410, charged resolved instance * reversed, remanded consistent ordered. THOMAS, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SCALIA, ALITO join, dissenting. Panetti's 1981. sympathetic figure, repeatedly face consequences murders committed. insanity defense, supported psychiatrists. Since *2864 simple. (1986), Presented undisputedly meet such, Ignoring mandate, bends over backwards bring worsenedor changedsince 1995. Along refuses defer respond report. Moreover, undertaking cursory analysis, determining respectfully dissent. (AEDPA) applicants permission appeals applications. 2244(b)(3). Even sought, decline 2244(b)(3)(C); 2244(b)(2).[1] ante, 2849-2850, 2852, admits seek authorization Accordingly, dismissal reaches "takes [AEDPA]." Ante, 2853 (2000)). fails pre-AEDPA defines, modifies successive." challenging anything successive."[2] my knowledge, *2865 Before enactment, thing todayany Kuhlmann Wilson, 436, 451-452, 2616, 364 (1986) (plurality opinion); Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 895, 103 3383, 77 1090 (1983). always Rather, doctrine entertain 2254(b) Rule 9(b) (1994 ed.) ("A [when] [if] assert writ"); 470, (1991); Kuhlmann, 2616 Barefoot, 3383. Consistent practice, usually proceed doctrine.[3] Martin Dugger, 686 1523, 1528 (S.D.Fla.1988) (permitting "second" change [and facts"); 875, 1994); Shaw Delo, 762 853, 857-859 (E.D.Mo.1991); Cabana, 661 356, (S.D.Miss.1987). Still, though, writ. Rector Lockhart, 783 398, 402-404 (E.D.Ark.1992). enacted restrict[ed] availability petitioners" placed "limits petitions." Instead specified eliminated saved dismissal. Stating "ha[ve] *2866 time," 2853, relies 640, 645-646, go forward. applicant unripe. Refusing applicant's successive, originally application: "This respondent 2244(b). ruled (or ruled) became words, ripens continuation 643-645, 797 ("[U]nlike Burton, [in Martinez-Villareal] petition"). application.[4] argue unanimously supra. convictions sentence, sentencing sentence. Ninth Burton's "reason[ing] exhausted [first] time." Circuit's excused Today's *2867 stands somehow deserve special (and unjustified) exemption import. Because text, jurisprudence supports successive," falls back economy considerations. create incentive prisoner, regardless state, event insane. 2852-2853, 2854-2855. pass, catastrophe suggests. dismiss outright, safe harbor Martinez-Villareal. Requiring added putting intends her justified, considerations override meaning. Remaining faithful successive. errs unreasonably protections. 2855. "resulted Federal States." 2254(d)(1). concurrence qualifies point, Ford.[5] rights triggered judgment); opinion) (using "high threshold"). Following "independent record," 2856, satisfactory showing. insupportable. exhibits (Gillespie Cty., Tex., Jud. Dist., Feb. *2868 Motion).[6] one-page describing 85-minute "preliminary evaluation" Panetti. Letter D. Cunningham, Ph.D., 108. Far containing "pointed observations," unsworn, contains diagnosis, understood exhibit professor attended meeting Declaration David Dow 110. Professor obviously diagnosis lay describes "expert," professors diagnoses. attached reports records, sworn professional, noted, merely "outlined 1981 1997." A-04-CA-042-SS 30, 4. evidencepreviously claimshad relevance 2004 Motion. addition utter layperson day-to-day basis, prison guards fellow inmates, affidavit letter. lawyer, contact meeting. absurd suggest quantum clears threshold," entitling claimants judgment).[7] Having exceeded *2869 asserts court." 2858 impartial decisionmaker. obvious satisfied obligations described. Florida Governornot courtmade final sanity. 412, opinion). 412-413, neutral decisionmaker evidence. Against backdrop, chance evidence: "The officer board minimal protections, "[b]eyond requirements, stressed "ordinary adversarial arriving sound, defendant's sanity." 2 "provide board." sole remaining "receive[d] outset discussion, leeway" judgment), "violat[ed] 2857. assertion, Procedure hearing: [under 46.05] (Tex.Crim.App.2000). Contrary statement, 2857, depend made. 130. *2870 denying grants "affidavits, supporting allegations" presently Therefore, whatever wanted. stood ready wished submit. shows opportunity. For respond, 78, 17-page objecting arguing methodology.[8] 79. No consideration submissionsthe single-page statements doctor lawyerwere paltry unpersuasive. examination unlimited objections "[d]efendant Given meager submissions, unsurprising further. [improperly] appointed." However, order's focus persuasive. Supported persuasive deserved mention. Part II-A, view, fairly Fordto "receive counsel." very least, concurrence. 3 dispute argues "failed experts." *2871 explicitly warn hearing.[9] position basis. proceeding needed else wanted consider: Mary Anderson George Parker Mr. 77-78. got message. assuming 2857-2858, funding 96-98. currently convince immediately. 80-95. demonstrates actually evidencebecause, submitbut pursuit 54; Investigator 2004); Him 45; Response Show (June 5; *2872 never recognized proceedingsmuch expertsand E.g., (holding court); Coleman Thompson, 501 722, 755, 2546, 115 640 (1991) (noting state-funded cases). nothing so. fees denied. track motion, 2868, 6, insubstantial highly unlikely planned else. evaluate "contrary or... law," 2254(d)(1).[10] C of" 2254(d). Not Applying competency, 99; 46.05(h), "presumed correct." 2254(e)(1). almost contrary. Hence, *2873 2254. because, proper, substantively correct. do, answering parses impose own. quibbles emerges half-baked leaves details work out. 2862-2863. justification thrusting muddled disarray, compels result. define 418, (stating address" insanity").[11] Only standard: "[No state] disputes appropriately defines deficiency trigger prohibition. perceives punishment, goal approaching prepare passing. forbids it." actual understanding, ibid., addresses "rationally understand" Tracing language "`aware' 815, Implicitly, "disbelieves him," 708 (W.D.Tex.2004), "unaware" challenges expansive use word "aware." 2862. "awareness" undefined "delusions [that] execution" *2874 manner.[12]Ante, 2861. Nevertheless, cobbles together stray spirit follow naturally today's "rational understanding." apparently imposing requirement, assiduously avoids applying analyzing (first "those modes acts cruel Bill Rights adopted" 1791); 560-561, (2005) (considering modern "standards decency"); (looking "objective contemporary values," "clearest most reliable" "legislation country's legislatures" likely avoided position.[13] 340-342, 2242 (SCALIA, dissenting) demanding executed). says, unreasonable. By contrast, todaysettling preferred outcome resort lawis foreign role misinterprets rejects NOTES [1] Section 2244(b)(2) states: "A unless "(A) retroactive collateral unavailable; "(B)(i) discovered exercise diligence; "(ii) proven viewed convincing factfinder offense." [2] post-AEDPA (1998)). decided inapplicability below. Infra, 2866. Like exception akin renewal 486-487, 1595; infra, 2866 Martinez-Villareal). maintain [3] If, asserts, art excepted explain why, immediately passage, Courts uniformly 2244. re Medina, 109 1556, 1563-1565 (C.A.11 1997) curiam); 952, 953-955 628, 630-631, 633-634 (C.A.9 allowing application). continue Richardson 256 257, 258-259 2001); Provenzano, 215 1233, 1235 2000); Nguyen Gibson, 162 600, 601 (C.A.10 1998) [4] "suggest[s] claim." "suggest[s]" thing. admits, waits 2853-2854 n.). [5] tenuous ignores tension counterproductive plurality's required. Compare procedurescomplete live cross-examination, oral counselare sanity"), 415, importance cross-examination). contradictory statements, say version view. [6] bite apple documents accompanied contained "nothing relate[d] (WD Jan. 4; 4 (same). 2850, determination, [7] 46.05(f)" "confirmed" 2856. proceeded abundance caution, perhaps humor "stay[ed] [for 60 days to] today Texas' one. avoid state-law determination. [8] "counsel response." 2858. note Apart visiting once, testing, adequately, abbreviated conclusions. Hearing 82-95 Objection [9] granted. above, specifically contention appropriate. II-B-1, err refusing them. state-provided review. 2004). transcribed videotaped examinations, protocols Videotape Examinations Conducted Court-Appointed Experts Seeking Out Protocol Conducting Evaluations formal, discovery. Discovery 49. [10] bona fide violation, laundry list 2857 ("[I]t case"). name ultimately 2849-2851. canceled give notice. 2850. later. 2851-2852. caused harm. Finally, better implicitly dismissing "failure informed," issued, information. [11] uniform national open [12] points `comprehen[sion]' `aware[ness]' token, suggested prisoner. acknowledge way other. [13] suggestion, genuine impediment relatively academic, abstract Specific regarding

Category: 0