729 F.3d 636
6th Cir.2013Background
- Good, a Michigan state prisoner, alleged that evidence against him was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The state trial court denied his suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed for lack of merit.
- Good pursued a federal habeas corpus petition; the district court denied relief and a COA was granted by a colleague of the court.
- The central issues are (i) whether Stone v. Powell bars federal review of the Fourth Amendment claim, and (ii) whether the lack of an evidentiary hearing violated due process.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Powell precludes habeas review if the state courts afforded an opportunity to raise the claim, and that due process did not require an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Stone v. Powell bar review of the Fourth Amendment claim? | Good argues lack of evidentiary hearing defeats the ‘full and fair consideration’ requirement. | Powell allows review to be barred so long as the state provided an opportunity to present the claim. | Yes; Powell bars review. |
| Did the state court's failure to provide an evidentiary hearing violate due process? | Due Process requires an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion. | No Supreme Court rule requires such a hearing in these circumstances. | No due process violation; affirmed on Powell grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims barred when state court afforded opportunity to present claim)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (state procedures and finality in habeas matters; comity and federalism principles)
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (right to hearing in involuntary-confession context; distinction from Fourth Amendment suppression)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AED review standard for state-court decisions; not plain error in suppression context)
- Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (2002) (adequate and independent state grounds; respect for state procedures)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (practical impact of suppression rulings and procedural requirements)
- Bradley v. Cowan, 561 F.2d 1213 (1977) (opportunity for full and fair consideration defined by the state- court avenue to present claims)
- Moore v. Cowan, 560 F.2d 1298 (1977) (majority rule: opportunity suffices for Powell analysis)
- Riley v. Gray, 674 F.2d 522 (1982) (unforeseeable procedural rule deprived defendant of fair opportunity)