Holland v. Florida, USSC No. 09-5327, 6/14/10 Habeas – Filing Deadline – Equitable Tolling, Generally The 1-year limitations period for filing an 18 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition is subject to “equitable tolling”: We have not decided whether AEDPA’s statutory limitations period may be tolled for equitable reasons. … Now, like all 11 Courts of Appeals… Read more
B. Federal
7th circuit court of appeals decision Habeas Review – Exculpatory Evidence Statements of three eyewitnesses, not disclosed to the defendant, that would have implicated the state’s principal eyewitness and otherwise impeached his credibility and that of 2 other state’s witnesses was “material.” It is reasonably probable that disclosure would have netted a different result, and… Read more
Renico v. Lett, USSC No. 09-338, 5/3/10 The state court’s conclusion of manifest necessity for mistrial where the foreperson reported inability to reach unanimity wasn’t unreasonable, hence grant of habeas relief is vacated: … (T)rial judges may declare a mistrial “whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity”… Read more
Berghuis v. Smith, USSC No. 08-1402, 3/30/10 Defendants have Sixth Amendment right to impartial jury drawn from fair cross section of community. To establish prima facie violation of this “fair-cross-section,” requirement, a defendant must prove that: (1) a group qualifying as “distinctive” (2) is not fairly and reasonably represented in jury venires, and (3) “systematic… Read more
7th circuit court of appeals decision; habeas review of: Wis court of appeals decision, 03AP3252 Habeas – Supplement Record … Although we generally decline to supplement the record on appeal with materials not before the district court, we have not applied this position categorically. See, e.g., Ruvalcaba v. Chandler, 416 F.3d 555, 562 n.2 (7th Cir. 2005) (in habeas… Read more
Johnbull K. Osagiede v. USA, 7th Cir No. 07-1131, 9/9/08 Issue/Holding: Counsel’s ignorance of VCCR Art. 36 rights available to foreign national client was deficient: Osagiede’s claim is a common one in Sixth Amendment cases. In essence, Osagiede argues that his lawyer should have been aware of his legal rights under Article 36 and should have… Read more
Donald Calloway v. Montgomery, 512 F. 3d 940, No. 07-1148, 1/14/08 Issue/Holding: Where the Supreme Court has expressly declined to rule on the issue (or on one in a very similar) context) to the issue on habeas review, there is no clearly established precedent within the meaning of AEDPA. Andrew Lockhart v. Chandler, 446 F.3d 721… Read more
Allen A. Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir 2005) Issue/Holding: AEDPA requirement of state court adjudication on merits requires neither “well-articulated or even correct decision”; state court need not offer any reasons, so that summary disposition would satisfy requirement. In short: it “is perhaps best understood by stating what it is not: it is not the… Read more
