Deference is Hot

These are interesting because "deferential review" is one hot potato:

A. The petition for cert (pending, earlier post) in Varner v. Thomas (3d Circuit) presented these questions:

1. Where counsel’s action at trial is objectively reasonable, may the conviction nonetheless be reversed on the ground that counsel’s subjective thought process is found deficient?
(Answered in the affirmative by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in conflict with other circuits.)

2. Where a state court has clearly adjudicated the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, may a federal court avoid AEDPA deference and invoke de novo review as to any aspect of the claim that, in the federal court’s view, has not adequately been addressed in the state court’s legal analysis?

(Answered in the affirmative by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.)

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT (verbatim)

I. The Circuits have split in constructing “objective” and “subjective” elements of the Strickland test. This Court should grant certiorari to make clear that an attorney’s subjective thought processes cannot trump an objectively reasonable rationale for his conduct.

II. This Court’s decisions in Weeks v. Angelone and Wiggins v. Smith have led to confusion concerning the nature of “deference” on habeas review. The Court should grant certiorari to make clear that review under § 2254(d) of the habeas act is of the state court’s ruling, not its reasoning.

The number of cases affected by this circuit conflict is unusually high, because ineffective assistance is perhaps the most frequently litigated issue in the field of criminal law. The impact is especially significant in federal habeas review of state convictions, where the subjective/ objective distinction affects application of all the special rules that have been created to accommodate federalism concerns: deference, evidentiary hearings, procedural default, and exhaustion. Even aside from such procedural matters, the difference between a subjective and an objective analysis of ineffectiveness claims is often outcome-determinative.

B. Eddleman v. McKee, No. 05-1493 (6th Cir. 12/14/2006) (6th Cir., 2006)
presents the question of what type of deference is owed on collateral review to a state court's harmless-error determination. David Eddleman was convicted of second-degree murder and a firearm offense in a Michigan state court. On direct review, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, concluding that the trial court erred in admitting his coerced confession but that the error was harmless. Eddleman petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The district court granted the writ, and warden Ken McKee appealed.

Affirmed: holding "that, when a state court has found an error to be harmless, we should ask on collateral review whether the state court's harmless-error decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, the clearly established federal rule that a trial error is harmless only if it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying this standard of review to the case at hand, we hold that the Michigan Court of Appeals's harmless-error determination was an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's decisions Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), and Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991). "

C. Frantz v. Hazey, No. 05-16024 (9th Cir. 1/5/2007) (9th Cir., 2007)
Ordered that parties brief the following issues:
(1) (a) When a state court utilizes a legal test contrary to that endorsed by the Supreme Court, may we affirm the denial of federal habeas relief if the ultimate decision of the state court (but not its reasoning) is consistent with precedent of the Supreme Court? See Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming denial of federal habeas relief where de novo review of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim showed that the conduct did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406 (2000) ("A state-court decision will also be contrary to this Court's clearly established precedent if the state court . . . arrives at a result different from our precedent."); Hernandez v. Small, 282 F.3d 1132, 1140 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[T]he intricacies of the state court's analysis need not concern us; what matters is whether the decision the court reached was contrary to controlling federal law.").
(b) Or, is our review under the "contrary to" prong of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) confined to the reasoning employed by the state court, necessitating a grant of federal habeas relief when the state court utilized reasoning contrary to precedent of the Supreme Court? See Van Lynn v. Farmon, 347 F.3d 735, 741 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[A] federal court may not avoid granting habeas relief by positing an alternative reason for the state court's decision that might have enabled the state court to reach the same result, where the record reveals that the state court did not base its decision on that alternative reason."); Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002) (per curiam) (noting that a state court need not even be aware of the Supreme Court's cases "so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them").
(2) Does petitioner's claim amount to structural error under McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984)? END

These also looked interesting:

Brewer v. Quarterman, No. 05-70056 (5th. Cir. 12/29/2006) (COA issues, IAC)

Wright v. Vaughn, No. 04-3457 (3rd Cir. 12/26/2006) (IAC fail to call witness)

Anderson v. Benik, No. 05-2323 (7th Cir. 12/20/2006)(exhaustion and proc default)

If not mistaken the Fifth Circuit has not been issuing many published decisions recently. I guess Nelson kept them pretty busy.

Today in SCOTUS

The opinion of the Court in MedImmune v. Genentech can now be found here. The syllabus is here. Justice Thomas's dissent is here.

The decision in U.S. v. Resendiz-Ponce can be found here. The syllabus is here. Justice Scalia's dissent is here.

The Court's ruling in Burton v. Stewart can be found here. (hat tip SCOTUSblog). And here, is Prof. Berman's reaction and some interesting comments concerning DIG's. Scot Henson at Grits for Breakfast (blog) might call this another "bench slap".

Here is my humble analysis of Burton, 549 U.S. ___ (2007) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, on which issue the state had lost challenges below).

The Procedural Bar is a Bleeping (no laughing matter): The Court sua sponte reviews a question of jurisdiction:

In a nutshell, Burton’s petition raised a question that was not properly "exhausted," and was not "excused" from the requirement (because it was presumably known to him that he might have a legitimate challenge after his sentence became final). As such it was not authorized explicitly as a “second or successive“ petition as required. But requiring authorization to proceed with a second petition presumes that one knows of the status as such.

The problem is that in 1998 when B proceeded with the first petition Apprendi had not been decided so he could not have known of the grounds under which he might challenge his sentence. Only after Apprendi (2000) was decided did he raise the challenge (in the 2002 petition) alleging violation of Apprendi. Is it so clear and obvious that a challenge the basis of which has not yet been “created” should have been foreseen, and therefore could not be excused for not having been foreseen?

The following language from Burton might seem dispositive at first glance (however, the 1998 petition was not a “mixed petition” because unexhausted grounds were not stated and the option to withdraw was not available or sensible; B proceeded with the claims he had at the time. Only after Apprendi “intervened” was he able to raise the sentencing claim under that ruling, and Blakely, posed in the 2002 petition):

That court’s ruling that Burton had a “legitimate excuse,” however, is inconsistent with the precise practice we have explained governs in circumstances such as Burton’s.
The plurality opinion in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 520.522 (1982), stated that district courts should dismiss “mixed petitions“ --those with exhausted and unexhausted claims--and that petitioners with such petitions have two options. They may withdraw a mixed petition, exhaust the remaining claims, and return to district court with a fully exhausted petition. We have held that in such circumstances the later filed petition would not be “second or successive.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 485.486 (2000). Alternatively, prisoners filing mixed petitions may proceed with only the exhausted claims, but doing so risks subjecting later petitions that raise new claims to rigorous procedural obstacles.

UPDATE: Given that a 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3) order was not sought (click for stat.) the Court's decision seems justified, if formalistic. This brings me back around to the question, what if you didn't think you were filing a "second or successive"? I know, this is weak, but only if you are a lawyer.

There just seems something wacky about having to ask for a pre-determination in order to file under a new rule in order to invoke that new rule for relief. Isn't it usually clear from the face of a petition that you are invoking a new rule? So what is the point of erecting these "rigorous procedural obstacles"? Surely this is not "justice" but injustice particularly to those who are not lawyers. Thanks Kent, for your response over at SL and P