Harrington v. Richter
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Oct 12, 2010
|Jan 19, 2011||8-0||Kennedy||OT 2010|
Holding: The defense lawyer was not deficient in failing to consult blood evidence when planning strategy for trial. (Kagan, J., recused).
Plain English Holding: Because the high standard for federal habeas relief established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act applies even when a state court does not issue an opinion explaining the basis of its decision, the petitioner's defense lawyer was not unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to consult blood evidence when planning strategy for his trial.
Judgment: Reversed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on January 19, 2011. (Kagan, J., recused).
- January at the Court: In Plain English
- Opinion analysis: Federal habeas courts must defer to unexplained state summary dispositions
- Argument recap: Court hears arguments on ineffective assistance and habeas corpus.
- Argument preview: Deference for ineffective assistance claim denials under AEDPA
- Clarifying jury selection
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Kelly Harrington
- Brief for Respondent Joshua Richter
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Kelly Harrington
- Brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Respondent
- Brief for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Law Professors and Legal Scholars in Support of Respondent