Greene v. Fisher
565 U.S. 34
SCOTUS2011Background
- AEDPA §2254(d)(1) prohibits habeas relief for claims adjudicated on the merits unless the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
- Greene, implicated by co-conspirators' statements in a 1993 North Philadelphia robbery; he did not confess, but was prosecuted with co-defendants who did.
- At Greene's trial, severance was denied but confessions of non-testifying co-defendants were redacted to remove proper names.
- Greene argued Bruton v. United States; Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld redaction as curing Bruton issue.
- Gray v. Maryland (1998) held redactions that reveal deletions as Bruton-like; intervening decision occurred before Greene’s direct appeal to state Supreme Court.
- Cullen v. Pinholster (2011) restricted §2254(d)(1) review to the record before the state court at the merits adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs AEDPA review here | Greene: use post-Gray law as clearly established. | State contends law is as of merits adjudication. | §2254(d)(1) uses law as of the time of the state court decision on the merits. |
| Which state-court decision is the relevant adjudication | Greene argues the state Supreme Court decision not to hear on the Bruton issue. | Adjudication refers to the merits decision of the state court that resolved the claim. | The last merits adjudication was the Pennsylvania Superior Court's decision; later affirmance on other grounds does not count. |
| Is Gray a clearly established rule for evaluating Greene’s claim at the time of the merits adjudication | Gray announced after the state decision, so not clearly established then. | Gray bears on the retroactive application of redaction concerns. | Gray was not clearly established law for the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s pre-Gray decision; thus not a basis to grant relief. |
| Does Teague retroactivity affect the result here | Greene relies on Teague for retroactive application of new rules. | AEDPA and Teague inquiries are distinct and Teague does not govern §2254(d)(1). | Teague retroactivity does not require relief under AEDPA here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (redactions resembling Bruton implicate the same concerns)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (AEDPA §2254(d)(1) review limited to record before the state court)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity of new constitutional rules)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA’s guard against excessive relitigation of state trials)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (Teague and AEDPA interplay; time-of-decision focus)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in federal habeas review)