Legal Document

542 U.S. 649 HOLLAND, WARDENv.JACKSON No. 03-1200. Supreme Court of United States. Decided June 28, 2004. Tennessee's principal evidence at respondent's murder trial was Jonathan Hughes' eyewitness testimony that he the scene with Melissa Gooch, who did not testify. Respondent convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. After unsuccessfully moving for a new trial, sought state postconviction relief, alleging, inter alia, his counsel had been ineffective in failing conduct an adequate investigation. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668. The court denied relief after evidentiary hearing, finding counsel's performance deficient that, any event, respondent suffered no prejudice. then moved claiming first time—after seven years—that Gooch would testify she Hughes on night question. motion. In affirming denial, State Criminal Appeals found filed earlier such motion given satisfactory reason locate years, Gooch's only impeach memory. denial noted there showing record favorable could have elicited from pleading contradict what claimed seen. Federal District granted summary judgment subsequent federal habeas claim, court's application erroneous but unreasonable within meaning 28 C. §2254(d)(1). Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding unreasonably applied Strickland, statement undermined credibility, opinion contrary because it assessed prejudice under preponderance-of-the-evidence, rather than reasonable-probability, standard. Held: erred granting § 2254(d)(1). First, basis properly before court. Although ventured deny merits taking into account, its also rested holding her it. Granting disregard this independent decision error, question whether must be light court, see, e. g., Yarborough Gentry, 540 1, 6. Second, required proof by preponderance evidence. recited correct reasonable-probability standard, inferred three passages actually doing so, ignored 2254(d)'s requirements "state-court decisions benefit doubt," Woodford Visciotti, 537 19, 24, "readiness attribute error is inconsistent presumption courts know follow law," ibid. Certiorari granted; 80 Fed. Appx. 392, reversed remanded. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. 1 * Jessie Jackson tried 1987 Tennessee James Crawley. asserted shot Crawley argument over drugs. Its Hughes, girlfriend when shooting occurred. jury convicted, 2 668 (1984). held hearing petition, "Motion Hearing Nature Motion New Trial," alleging newly discovered He time—seven years conviction—that now testimony, shooting. motion, appealed both rulings Appeals. 3 That affirmed. It upheld observing already "no defendant's failure witness" during elapsed, proposed "would serve merely memory about having seen [Gooch] night." App. Pet. Cert. 88. affirmed noting never "been elicited" interviewed her, even crediting "unsubstantiated pleading," "it way rises level contradicting claims seen" respecting itself. Id., 96-97 (emphasis added). 4 State's judgment. assistance counsel, several shortcomings opining reasonable probability observed, however, grant if adjudication claim "contrary to, or involved of, clearly established law." concluded while erroneous, unreasonable. 5 reversed. 392 (2003). number flaws performance, 2254(d)(1) based two specific grounds: first, credibility testimony; second, preponderance-of-the-evidence standard 6 We petition writ certiorari leave proceed forma pauperis, reverse. II 7 86-89, 95-98. error. 8 "unreasonable application" clause applies "state identifies governing legal principle Court's facts prisoner's case." Williams Taylor, 529 362, 413 (2000). related contexts we made clear (2003) (per curiam) (denying where law "supported record"); Miller-El Cockrell, 322, 348 (reasonableness factual "in court"); cf. Bell Cone, 535 685, 697, n. (2002) (declining consider presented determining law). 9 Under statute, subject Court, fault develop (if fault) conditions prescribed 2254(e)(2) were met. 420, 431-437 Those same restrictions apply fortiori prisoner seeks without hearing. See, Cargle Mullin, 317 F. 3d 1196, 1209 (CA10 2003), cases cited. Where admitted, some Courts conducted de novo review theory relevant state-court determination which one defer. e.g., Monroe Angelone, 323 286, 297-299, 19 (CA4 2003). Assuming, arguendo, analysis where, as here, does support buttresses previously rejected one, cannot Circuit's action. 10 diligent pursuing (and thus inapplicable) limitations set forth Nor independently inquire these matters; simply entirely ground decision, difficult moreover, how due diligence 7-year delay. complains heed pleas assistance. 65. Attorney negligence, chargeable client precludes unless are satisfied. Williams, supra, 439-440; Coleman Thompson, 501 722, 753-754 (1991). 11 therefore Strickland.* B 12 acted requiring probability. began reciting standard: 13 "`[T]he defendant show unprofessional errors, result proceeding different. A sufficient undermine confidence outcome.'" 95 (quoting S., 694). 14 nevertheless opinion. 15 First "[i]n post-conviction proceeding, has burden proving allegations evidence." 95. context, reasonably read addressing general proceedings regard contentions—for example, those relating defense deficient. possible referring deficiency prejudicial, thereby supplanting reading needlessly create internal inconsistency 16 Second asking too much draw inference believed all testified." 96. evidently thought passage intimated see why. quoted language imply particular 17 Last "failed carry outcome probably different errors." 98. use unadorned word "probably" permissible shorthand complete elsewhere recited. 23-24 curiam). 18 As explained 2254(d) requires doubt." 24. "[R]eadiness Ibid. prescriptions. 20 case remanded further consistent 21 so ordered. 22 JUSTICE STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER certiorari. Notes: reject contention failed adequately preserve See,e.g., Final Brief Appellee 01-5720 (CA6), p. 18, 3.

Classification Label: 0