Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, is a 2011 United States Supreme Court case concerning evidentiary development in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Oral arguments in the case took place on November 9, 2010, and the Supreme Court issued its decision on April 4, 2011.
Congress authorized federal courts in 28 USC § 2254 to grant habeas review when the state process was "ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner". The exhaustion requirement recognized in Ex parte Hawk was codified in the 1948 amendment to § 2254: "This new section is declaratory of existing law as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Rather, he wrote, the case at hand depended on whether federal rights could be vindicated in federal courts pursuant to a statute written by the U.S. Congress (28 U.S.C. § 2254, governing habeas corpus petitions). [1]
Under 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. 21-328: 2022-5-23
As the basis for the habeas challenge was Title 28, Section §2254 of the United States Code, each element of that section had to be fulfilled in order to gain relief (a reduction in sentence). [4] The first element was that the petitioner is "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court", a status that Coss could not fulfill as he was ...
Allen held that federal courts had statutory authority under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 to hear collateral attacks on state convictions for constitutional error, even if the state courts had already adjudicated the federal question fully and fairly, unless there was a state ground for procedural default. [6]
Habeas corpus petitions are a very old judicial process, dating back to the 12th century in England. [10] More recently, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, had imposed particular limits on how federal courts in the U.S. handled habeas corpus petitions from prisoners in state prisons.
Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.