<< The Bordering on Silly Defense of Eric Holder (Updated) | Main | News Scan >>


USCA9 Reversed on AEDPA. Summarily. Unanimously. Again.

| 2 Comments
The US Supreme Court today decided Nevada v. Jackson, No. 12-694:

In this case, the Court of Appeals held that respondent, who was convicted of rape and other serious crimes, is entitled to relief under the federal habeas statute because the Supreme Court of Nevada unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent regarding a criminal defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. At his trial, respondent unsuccessfully sought to introduce evidence for the purpose of showing that the rape victim previously reported that he had assaulted her but that the police had been unable to substantiate those allegations. The state supreme court held that this evidence was properly excluded, and no prior decision of this Court clearly establishes that the exclusion of this evidence violated respondent's federal constitutional rights. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.
The "clearly established" standard applied here is the standard set by Congress in its landmark 1996 reform of federal habeas review of state cases, 28 U.S.C. ยง2254(d).  This is not the first time the Ninth Circuit has been so obviously wrong in applying that statute that  the Supreme Court reversed without the need for merits briefing or oral argument, and without a single justice saying the Ninth was correct.  It is not the second time.  Or the third or fourth or fifth.

When AEDPA was going through Congress, Senator Kyl predicted that this compromise standard would not be applied as Congress intended it.  To a large degree he was correct.  His amendment to give state court decisions the same kind of finality that the decisions of the local D.C. courts receive was defeated back then, but it is time to reconsider it.

2 Comments

How many is this for Reinhardt? And an Obama judge was part of the panel majority. Looks like we've got years more of arrogant and incompetent judging.

| "[Kyle's] amendment to give state court decisions the same kind of finality that the decisions of the local D.C. courts receive was defeated back then, but it is time to reconsider it." |

Akin to having Congress held to the same Obamacare forced on the rest of America?

~Adamakis

[but not unions & other biggies]

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives