The questions the State of California asked the Supreme Court to review in Cavazos v. Williams were:
The Ninth Circuit opinion, by our favorite circuit judge, is here.
1. Whether a habeas petitioner's claim has been "adjudicated on the merits" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) where the state court denied relief in an explained decision but did not expressly acknowledge a federal-law basis for the claim.The Court accepted Question 1 and turned down Question 2.
2. Whether, under § 2254, a federal habeas court (a) may grant relief on the ground that the petitioner had a Sixth Amendment right to retain a biased juror on the panel and (b) may reject a state court's finding of juror bias because it disagrees with the finding and the reasons stated for it, even where the finding was rationally supported by evidence in the state-court record.
The Ninth Circuit opinion, by our favorite circuit judge, is here.
In fairness, Reinhardt is joined by Judge Kozinski.
The lack of deference in the opinion with respect to the California court's factfinding is very troublesome.
I can see both sides to this one, but Packer v. Early seems to foreclose the Ninth Circuit's position.