Ryan v. James
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-11||9th Cir.||Not Argued||Mar 18, 2013||TBD||TBD||OT 12|
Issue: Whether the Ninth Circuit’s panel opinion conflicts with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and this Court's decisions in Harrington v. Richter, and Cullen v. Pinholster insofar as it (a) treated AEDPA’s deferential standard as a waivable defense, rather than an inherent restriction on a federal court’s authority, (b) refused to find that the state post-conviction (PCR) court issued a merits ruling on respondent’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, when the state court expressly ruled that none of respondent’s PCR claims were colorable, and (c) considered evidence presented for the first time in federal court to grant habeas relief.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Vacated and remanded on March 18, 2013.
- Petition of the day (Ben Cheng)