|
|
|
| AEDPA Deference |
Perez v. Cain
No. 08-30082 (5th Cir., May 29, 2008): 1. Habeas Corpus; AEDPA Deference (Met); 2. Insanity/Competency: In this state murder case involving the murder of a police officer in Louisiana, a grant of habeas relief is AFFIRMED on the basis that the state courts applied unreasonably clearly established Supreme Court precedent concerning sufficiency of the evidence because Perez established at trial that he was insane at the time of the offense and that no rational juror could have found otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fry v. Pliler,
No. 06-5247 (U.S., June 11, 2007): Habeas Corpus; AEDPA Deference: This case involves an esoteric question in federal habeas review of state court decisions concerning the standard of review for harmless error. The harmless error standard on direct appeal is governed by the Chapman standard which requires the government to prove the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in habeas proceedings, the Court has imposed a standard less favorable to the petitioner and saddles the petitioner with the task of showing the error had a "substantial and injurious effect" on the verdict pursuant to Brecht. The AEDPA requires federal courts to give deference to state court opinions. But which standard applies if the State appellate court does not apply Chapman in the first instance? HELD: The Brecht standard applies no matter what the state court does.
|
|
|
Crater v. Galaza,
No. 05-17027 (9th Cir., December 6, 2007): Habeas Corpus; AEDPA Deference: This is an order denying rehearing en banc by the Ninth Circuit, but it is notable because of the dissent by Judge Reinhardt, joined by four other judges, in which he asserts that the AEDPA is unconstitutional insofar as it forces the federal judiciary to give deference to state court rulings which are, in the independent judgment of the federal court, simply wrong as a matter of federal constitutional law.
|
|
|
Wright v. Van Patten,
No. 07-212 (U.S., January 7, 2008): Habeas Corpus; AEDPA Deference: In this federal habeas corpus case, Van Patten had argued successfully in the court below that his attorney was presumptively ineffective (under Cronic, not Strickland) because the attorney participated in a plea hearing by speaker phone instead of in person. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that no case from the Court addressed this issue; thus, the holding of the state courts below cannot be said to have been contrary to clearly established federal law. NOTE: The Court did not decide whether telephone-presence of counsel at pleas is constitutional; only that no case from the Court has addressed this particular question, thus habeas relief is not warranted in this case.
|
|
|
|
