Cullen v. Pinholster
131 S. Ct. 1388
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Pinholster and two accomplices robbed and killed two men during a night-time burglary, resulting in two first-degree murder convictions and a death sentence.
- California habeas relief was denied by the state Supreme Court; a federal habeas corpus petition was granted after an evidentiary hearing found penalty-phase ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The penalty-phase defense was minimal: defense counsel presented only Pinholster’s mother; no psychiatric/mitigating expert testimony beyond trial records.
- The district court later granted relief under pre-AEDPA standards; on en banc review, the Ninth Circuit held that new evidence could be considered in assessing whether the California Supreme Court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
- The Supreme Court held that §2254(d)(1) review is limited to the state-court record at the time of the underlying merits decision, rejected considering federal-hearing evidence for that prong, reversed the Ninth Circuit, and affirmed that relief was not warranted on the state-court record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of §2254(d)(1) review | Pinholster: new federal-hearing evidence can inform §2254(d)(1) | Ayers: review limited to state-court record | Limited to the state-court record |
| Effect of new evidence on §2254(e)(2) viability | New evidence could be pivotal; hearing appropriate | e(e)2 restricts new evidence; hearing only under narrow conditions | e(2) remains applicable; not all new evidence mandates a de novo proceeding |
| Whether California Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland on the state record | State court unreasonably applied Strickland to deny relief | State court reasonably applied Strickland given the record | California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland |
| Prejudice under Strickland given mitigating evidence | New mitigating evidence could have changed the outcome | Mitigating evidence insufficient to show reasonable probability of different result | No reasonable probability of different outcome based on record |
| Remand vs. direct review with state record | Remand appropriate for limited review | Remand improper; state record sufficient | Remand unnecessary; review limited to state-court record |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; performance and prejudice tests; strong presumption of competence)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (highly deferential, 'unreasonable application' standard under AEDPA)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362 (U.S. 2000) ('unreasonable application' of law to fact; identify governing principle)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U. S. 465 (U.S. 2007) ( AEDPA: evidentiary hearing discretion; deferential review)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U. S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (mitigation investigation and reasonable strategy under Strickland)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (duty to investigate; extensive mitigation evidence; prejudice under Strickland)
- Michael Williams (Williams v. Taylor), 529 U. S. 420 (U.S. 2000) (Michael Williams decision on §2254(e)(2) and evidentiary hearings)