Lead Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
[
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Scott Lynn Pinholster and two accomplices broke into a house in the middle of the night and brutally beat and stabbed to death two men who happened to interrupt the burglary. A jury convicted Pinholster of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to death.
After the California Supreme Court twice unanimously denied Pinholster habeas relief, a Federal District Court held an evidentiary hearing and granted Pinholster habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254. The District Court concluded that Pinholster’s trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective at the penalty phase of trial. Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Pinholster v. Ayers,
We granted certiorari and now reverse.
I
A
On the evening of January 8, 1982, Pinholster solicited Art Corona and Paul David Brown to help him rob Michael Kumar, a local drug dealer. On the way, they stopped at
[
Lisa
Tapar’s house, where Pinholster put his buck knife through her front door and scratched a swastika into her car after she refused to talk to him. The three men, who were all armed with buck knives, found no one at Kumar’s house, broke in, and began ransacking the home. They came across only a small amount of marijuana before Kumar’s friends, Thomas Johnson and Robert Beckett, arrived and shouted that they were calling the police.
Pinholster and his accomplices tried to escape through the rear door, but Johnson blocked their path. Pin-holster backed Johnson onto the patio, demanding drugs and money and repeatedly striking him in the chest. Johnson dropped his wallet on the ground and stopped resisting. Beckett then came around the corner, and Pinholster attacked him, too, stabbing him repeatedly in the chest. Pin-holster forced Beckett to the ground,
Corona drove the three men to Pin-holster’s apartment. While in the car, Pinholster and Brown exulted, “ We got ’em, man, we got ’em good.’ ” Ibid. At the apartment, Pinholster washed his knife, and the three split the proceeds of the robbery: $23 and one quarter-ounce of marijuana. Although Pinholster instructed Corona to “lay low,” Corona turned himself in to the police two weeks later. Id., at 4955. Pinholster was arrested shortly thereafter and threatened to kill Corona if he did not keep quiet about the burglary and murders. Corona later became the State’s primary witness. The prosecution brought numerous charges against Pinholster, including two counts of first-degree murder.
B
The California trial court appointed Harry Brainard and Wilbur Dettmar to defend Pinholster on charges of first-degree murder, robbery, and burglary. Before their appointment,
[
Pin-holster had rejected other attorneys and insisted on representing himself. During that time, the State had mailed Pinholster a letter in jail informing him that the prosecution planned to offer aggravating evidence during the penalty phase of trial to support a sentence of death.
The guilt phase of the trial began on February 28, 1984. Pinholster testified on his own behalf and presented an alibi defense. He claimed that he had broken into Kumar’s house alone at around 8 p.m. on January 8, 1982, and had stolen marijuana but denied killing anyone. Pinholster asserted that later that night around 1 a.m., while he was elsewhere, Corona went to Kumar’s house to steal more drugs and did not return for three hours. Pinholster told the jury that he was a “professional robber,” not a murderer. 43 id., at 6204. He boasted of committing hundreds of robberies over the previous six years but insisted that he always used a gun, never a knife. The jury convicted Pinholster on both counts of first-degree murder.
Before the penalty phase, Brainard and Dettmar moved to exclude any aggravating evidence on the ground that the prosecution had failed to provide notice of the evidence to be introduced, as required by Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3 (West 2008). At a hearing on April 24, Dettmar argued that, in reliance on the lack of notice, he was “not presently prepared to offer anything by way of mitigation.” 52 Tr. 7250. He acknowledged, however, that the prosecutor “possibly ha[d] met the [notice] requirement.” Ibid. The trial court asked whether a continuance might be helpful, but Dett-mar declined, explaining that he could not think of a mitigation witness other than Pinholster’s mother and that additional time would not “make a great deal of difference.” Id., at 7257-7258. Three days later, after hearing testimony, the court found that Pinholster had received notice while representing himself and denied the motion to exclude.
The penalty phase was held before the same jury that had convicted Pin-holster. The prosecution produced eight witnesses,
[
who testified about Pinholster’s history of threatening
After 2½ days of deliberation, the jury unanimously voted for death on each of the two murder counts. On mandatory appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. People v. Pinholster,
C
In August 1993, Pinholster filed his first state habeas petition. Represented by new counsel, Pinholster alleged, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial. He alleged that Brainard and Dettmar had failed to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence, including evidence of mental disorders. Pinholster supported this claim with school, medical, and legal records, as well as declarations from family members, Brainard, and Dr. George Woods, a psychiatrist who diagnosed Pinholster with bipolar mood disorder and seizure disorders. Dr. Woods criticized Dr. Stalberg’s report as incompetent, unreliable, and inaccurate. The California Supreme Court unanimously and summarily
[
ineffective-assistance claim “on the substantive ground that it is without merit.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 302.
Pinholster filed a federal habeas petition in April 1997. He reiterated his previous allegations about penalty-phase ineffective assistance and also added new allegations that his trial counsel had failed to furnish Dr. Stalberg with adequate background materials. In support of the new allegations, Dr. Stalberg provided a declaration stating that in 1984, Pinholster’s trial counsel had provided him with only some police reports and a 1978 probation report. Dr. Stalberg explained that, had he known about the material that had since been gathered by Pinholster’s habeas counsel, he would have conducted “further inquiry” before concluding that Pinholster suffered only from a personality disorder. App. to Brief in Opposition 219. He noted that Pinholster’s school records showed evidence of “some degree of brain damage.” Ibid. Dr. Stalberg did not, however, retract his earlier diagnosis. The parties stipulated that this declaration had never been submitted to the California Supreme Court, and the federal petition was held in abeyance to allow Pinholster to go back to state court.
In August 1997, Pinholster filed his second state habeas petition, this time including Dr. Stalberg’s declaration and requesting judicial notice of
[
Having presented Dr. Stalberg’s declaration to the state court, Pinhol-ster returned to the District Court. In November 1997, he filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. His allegations of penalty-phase ineffective assistance of counsel were identical to those in his second state habeas petition. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and Pinhol-ster also moved, in the alternative, for an evidentiary hearing.
The District Court concluded that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, did not apply and granted an evidentiary hearing. Before the hearing, the State deposed Dr. Stal-berg, who stated that none of the new material he reviewed altered his original diagnosis. Dr. Stalberg disagreed with Dr. Woods’ conclusion that Pinholster suffers from bipolar disorder. Pinholster did not call Dr. Stalberg to testify at the hearing. He presented two new medical experts: Dr. Sophia Vinogradov, a psychiatrist who diagnosed Pinholster with organic personality syndrome and ruled out antisocial personality disorder, and Dr. Donald Olson, a pediatric neurologist who suggested that Pin-holster suffers from partial epilepsy and brain injury. The State called Dr. F. David Rudnick, a psychiatrist who, like Dr. Stalberg, diagnosed Pinhol-ster with antisocial personality disorder and rejected any diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
D
The District Court granted habeas relief. Applying pre-AEDPA standards, the court granted the habeas petition “for inadequacy of counsel by failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence at the penalty hearing.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 262. After Woodford v. Garceau,
[
On rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals vacated the panel opinion and affirmed the District Court’s grant of habeas relief. The en banc court held that the District Court’s evidentiary hearing was not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). The court then determined that new evidence from the hearing could be considered in assessing whether the California Supreme Court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” under § 2254(d)(1). See
Three judges dissented and rejected the majority’s conclusion that the District Court hearing was not barred by § 2254(e)(2).
We granted certiorari to resolve two questions.
II
We first consider the scope of the record for a § 2254(d)(1) inquiry. The State argues that review is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Pinholster contends that evidence presented
[
to the federal ha-beas court may also be considered. We agree with the State.
A
As amended by AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 sets several limits on the power of a federal court to grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a state prisoner. Section 2254(a) permits a federal court to entertain only those applications alleging that a person is in state custody “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Sections 2254(b) and (c) provide that a federal court may not grant such applications unless, with certain exceptions, the applicant has exhausted state remedies.
If an application includes a claim that has been “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings,” § 2254(d), an additional restriction applies. Under § 2254(d), that application “shall not be granted with respect to [such a] claim . . . unless the adjudication of the claim”:
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
“(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
This is a “difficult to meet,” Harrington v. Richter,
[
past tense, to a state-court adjudication that “resulted in” a decision that was contrary to, or “involved” an unreasonable application of, established law. This backward-looking language requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time—i.e., the record before the state court.
This understanding of the text is compelled by “the broader context of the statute as a whole,” which demonstrates Congress’ intent to channel prisoners’ claims first to the state courts. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.,
Limiting § 2254(d)(1) review to the state-court record is consistent with our precedents interpreting that statutory provision. Our cases emphasize that review under § 2254(d)(1) focuses on what a state court knew and did. State-court decisions are measured against this Court’s precedents as of “the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade,
[
courts to analyze whether a state court’s adjudication resulted in a decision that unreasonably applied federal law to facts not before the state court.
Our recent decision in Schriro v. Landrigan,
The Court of Appeals wrongly interpreted Williams v. Taylor,
[
Michael Williams did not concern whether evidence introduced in such a hearing could be considered under § 2254(d)(1). In fact, only one claim at issue in that case was even subject to § 2254(d); the rest had not been adjudicated on the merits in state-court proceedings. See id., at 429,
If anything, the decision in Michael Williams supports our holding. The lower court in that case had determined that the one claim subject to § 2254(d)( 1) did not satisfy that statutory requirement. In light of that ruling, this Court concluded that it was “unnecessary to reach the question whether § 2254(e)(2) would permit a [federal] hearing on th[at] claim.” Id., at 444,
The Court of Appeals’ reliance on Holland v. Jackson,
[
Today, we reject that assumption and hold that evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review. If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal ha-beas petitioner must overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court.
B
Pinholster’s contention that our holding renders § 2254(e)(2) superfluous is incorrect. Section 2254(e)(2) imposes a limitation on the discretion of federal habeas courts to take new evidence in an evidentiary hearing. See Landrigan, supra, at 473,
Section 2254(e)(2) continues to have force where § 2254(d)(1) does not bar federal habeas relief. For example,
[
not all federal habeas claims by state prisoners fall within the scope of § 2254(d), which applies only to claims “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” At a minimum, therefore, § 2254(e)(2) still restricts the discretion of federal habeas courts to consider new evidence when deciding claims that were not adjudicated on the merits in state court. See, e.g., Michael Williams,
Although state prisoners may sometimes submit new evidence in federal court, AEDPA’s statutory scheme is designed to strongly discourage them from doing so. Provisions like §§ 2254(d)(1) and (e)(2) ensure that “[flederal courts sitting in habeas are not an alternative forum for trying facts and issues which a prisoner made insufficient effort to
C
Accordingly, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in considering the District Court evidence in its review under § 2254(d)(1). Although we might ordinarily remand for a properly limited review, the Court of Appeals also ruled, in the alternative, that Pinholster merited habeas relief
[
even on the state-court record alone.
Ill
The Court of Appeals’ alternative holding was also erroneous. Pinhol-ster has failed to demonstrate that the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law to his penalty-phase ineffective-assistance claim on the state-court record. Section 2254(d) prohibits habeas relief.
A
Section 2254(d) applies to Pinhol-ster’s claim because that claim was adjudicated on the merits in state-court proceedings. No party disputes that Pinholster’s federal petition alleges an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that had been included in both of Pinholster’s state habeas petitions. The California Supreme Court denied each of those petitions “on the substantive ground that it is without merit.”
Section 2254(d) applies even where there has been a summary denial. See Richter,
[
Pinholster can satisfy the “unreasonable application” prong of § 2254(d)(1) only by showing that “there was no reasonable basis” for the California Supreme Court’s decision. Id., at 98,
[
B
There is no dispute that the clearly established federal law here is Strickland v. Washington. In Strickland, this Court made clear that “the purpose of the effective assistance guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is not to improve the quality of legal representation . . . [but] simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.”
Recognizing the “tempt[ation] for a defendant to second-guess counsel’s assistance after conviction or adverse sentence,” ibid., the Court established that counsel should be “strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment,” id., at 690,
The Court also required that defendants prove prejudice. Id., at 691-692,
[
Our review of the California Supreme Court’s decision is thus “doubly deferential.” Knowles v. Mirzayance,
C
1
Pinholster has not shown that the California Supreme Court’s decision that he could not demonstrate deficient performance by his trial counsel necessarily involved an unreasonable application of federal law. In arguing to the state court that his counsel performed deficiently, Pinholster contended that they should have pursued and presented additional evidence about: his family members and their criminal, mental, and substance abuse problems; his schooling; and his medical and mental health history, including his epileptic disorder. To support his allegation that his trial counsel had “no reasonable tactical basis” for the approach they took, Pinholster relied on statements his counsel made at trial. App. to Brief in Opposition 143. When arguing the motion to exclude the State’s aggravating evidence at the penalty phase for failure to comply with Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3, Dettmar, one of Pinholster’s counsel, contended that because the State did not provide notice, he “[was] not presently prepared to offer anything by way of mitigation,” 52 Tr. 7250. In response to the trial court’s inquiry as to whether a continuance might be helpful, Dett-mar noted that the only mitigation witness he could think of was Pinholster’s
[
mother. Additional time, Dettmar stated, would not “make a great deal of difference.” Id., at 7257-7258.
We begin with the premise that “under the circumstances, the challenged action [s] might be considered sound trial strategy.” Strickland, supra, at 689,
“[Pinholster’s attorneys] were fully aware that they would have to deal with mitigation sometime during the course of the trial, did spend considerable time and effort investigating avenues for mitigation [,] and made a reasoned professional*576 judgment that the best way to serve their client would be to rely on the fact that they never got [the required § 190.3] notice and hope the judge would bar the state from putting on their aggravation witnesses.”590 F.3d, at 701-702 (opinion of Kozinski, C. J.).
Further, if their motion was denied, counsel were prepared to present only Pinholster’s mother in the penalty phase to create sympathy not for Pin-holster, but for his mother. After all, the “ ‘family sympathy’ ” mitigation defense was known to the defense bar in California at the time and had been used by other attorneys. Id., at 707. Rather than displaying neglect, we presume that Dettmar’s arguments were part of this trial strategy. See Gentry, supra, at 8,
The state-court record supports the idea that Pinholster’s counsel acted strategically to get the prosecution’s aggravation witnesses excluded for lack of notice, and if that failed, to put on Pinholster’s mother. Other statements made during the argument regarding the motion to exclude suggest that defense counsel were trying to take advantage of a legal technicality and were not truly surprised. Brain-ard and
[
Dettmar acknowledged that the prosecutor had invited them on numerous occasions to review Pinhol-ster’s state prison file but argued that such an invitation did not meet with the “strict demands” of § 190.3. 52 Tr. 7260. Dettmar admitted that the prosecutor, “being as thorough as she is, possibly ha[d] met the requirement.” Id., at 7250. But if so, he wanted her “to make that representation to the court.”
Timesheets indicate that Pinhol-ster’s trial counsel investigated mitigating evidence.
[
about Pinholster’s background during the guilt phase. Infra, at 200,
The record also shows that Pinhol-ster’s counsel confronted a challenging penalty phase with an unsympathetic client, which limited their feasible mitigation strategies. By the end of the guilt phase, the jury had observed Pinholster “glor[y]” in “his criminal disposition” and “hundreds of robberies.” Pinholster,
Trial counsel’s psychiatric expert, Dr. Stalberg, had concluded that Pin-holster showed no significant signs or symptoms of mental disorder or defect other than his “psychopathic personality traits.” App. 131. Dr. Stalberg was aware of Pinholster’s hyperactivity as a youngster, hospitalization at age 14 for incorrigibility, alleged epileptic disorder, and history of drug dependency. Nevertheless, Dr. Stal-berg told counsel that Pinholster did not appear to suffer from brain damage, was not significantly intoxicated or impaired on the night in question, and did not have an impaired ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
Given these impediments, it would have been a reasonable penalty-phase strategy to focus on evoking sympathy for Pinholster’s mother. In fact, such a family-sympathy defense is precisely how the State understood defense counsel’s
[
strategy. The prosecutor carefully opened her cross-examination of Pinholster’s mother with, “I hope you understand I don’t enjoy cross-examining a mother of anybody.” 52 Tr. 7407. And in her closing argument, the prosecutor attempted to undercut defense counsel’s strategy by pointing out, “Even the most heinous person born, even Adolph Hitler[,] probably had a mother who loved him.” 53 id., at 7452.
Pinholster’s only response to this evidence is a series of declarations from Brainard submitted with Pinhol-ster’s first state habeas petition, seven years after the trial. Brainard declares that he has “no recollection” of interviewing any family members (other than Pinholster’s mother) regarding penalty-phase testimony, of attempting to secure Pinholster’s school or medical records, or of interviewing any former teachers or counselors. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus in No. S004616 (Cal.), Exh. 3. Brain-ard also declares that Dettmar was primarily responsible for mental health issues in the case, but he has “no recollection” of Dettmar ever having secured Pinholster’s medical records. Id., Exh. 2. Dettmar neither confirmed nor denied Brainard’s statements, as he had died by the
In sum, Brainard and Dettmar made statements suggesting that they were not surprised that the State intended to put on aggravating evidence, billing records show that they spent time investigating mitigating evidence, and the record demonstrates that they represented a psychotic client whose performance at trial hardly endeared him to the jury. Pinholster has responded to this evidence with only a handful of post hoc nondenials by one of his lawyers. The California Supreme Court could have reasonably concluded that Pinholster had failed to rebut the presumption of competence mandated by Strickland—here, that counsel had adequately performed at the penalty phase of trial.
[
2
The Court of Appeals held that the California Supreme Court had unreasonably applied Strickland because Pinholster ⅛ attorneys “w[ere] far more deficient than . . . the attorneys in Terry Williams, Wiggins [v. Smith,
The Court of Appeals misapplied Strickland and overlooked “the constitutionally protected independence of counsel and . . . the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions.”
[
erred in attributing strict rules to this Court’s recent case law.
Nor did the Court of Appeals properly apply the strong presumption of
Justice Sotomayor questions whether it would have been a reasonable professional judgment for Pinholster’s trial counsel to adopt a family-sympathy mitigation defense. Post, at 231,
[
At bottom, Justice Sotomayor’s view is grounded in little more than her own sense of “prudence,” post, at 231,
Justice Sotomayor’s approach is flatly inconsistent with Strickland’s recognition that “[t]here are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case.”
We have recently reiterated that “ ‘[slurmounting Strickland’s high bar is never an easy task.’ ” Richter, supra, at 105,
D
Even if his trial counsel had performed deficiently, Pinholster also has failed to show that the California Supreme
[
Court must have unreasonably concluded that Pinholster was not prejudiced. “[T]he question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer . . . would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” Strickland, supra, at 695,
1
We turn first to the aggravating and mitigating evidence that the sentencing jury considered. See Strickland, supra, at 695,
The State presented extensive aggravating evidence. As we have already discussed, the jury watched Pinholster revel in his extensive criminal history. Supra, at 193,
[
guards, and fought with other inmates. While in jail, Pinholster had been segregated for a time due to his propensity for violence and placed on a “special disciplinary diet” reserved only for the most disruptive inmates. 52 Tr. 7305.
The mitigating evidence consisted
Pinholster always struggled in school. He was disruptive in kindergarten and was failing by first grade. He got in fights and would run out of the classroom. In third grade, Pinhol-ster’s teacher suggested that he was more than just a “ ‘disruptive child.’ ” Id., at 7394. Following tests at a clinic, Pinholster was sent to a school for educationally handicapped children where his performance improved.
At age 10, psychiatrists recommended that Pinholster be sent to a mental institution, although he did not go. Pinholster had continued to initiate fights with his brothers and to act like “Robin Hood” around the neighborhood, “ [stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.” Id., at 7395. Brashear had thought then that “[s]omething was not working right.” Id., at 7396.
By age 10 or 11, Pinholster was living in boys’ homes and juvenile halls. He spent six months when he was 12 in a state mental institution for emotionally handicapped children. By the time he was 18, Pinholster was in county jail, where he was beaten badly. Brashear suspected that the beating caused Pinholster’s epilepsy, for which he has been prescribed medication. After a stint in state prison, Pinholster
[
returned home but acted “unusual” and had trouble readjusting to life. Id., at 7405.
Pinholster’s siblings were “basically very good children,” although they would get into trouble. Id., at 7401. His brother, Terry, had been arrested for drunk driving and his sister, Tammy, for public intoxication. Tammy also was arrested for drug possession and was self-destructive and “wild.” Ibid. Pinholster’s eldest brother, Alvin, died a fugitive from California authorities.
In addition to Brashear’s penalty-phase testimony, Pinholster had previously presented mitigating evidence during the guilt phase from his brother, Terry. Terry testified that Pinholster was “more or less in institutions all his life,” suffered from epilepsy, and was “more or less” drunk on the night of the murders. 42 id., at 6015, 6036.
After considering this aggravating and mitigating evidence, the jury returned a sentence of death. The state trial court found that the jury’s determination was “supported overwhelmingly by the weight of the evidence” and added that “the factors in aggra
2
There is no reasonable probability that the additional evidence Pinhol-ster presented in his state habeas proceedings would have changed the jury’s verdict. The “new” evidence largely duplicated the mitigation evidence at trial. School and medical records basically substantiate the testimony of
[
Pinholster’s mother and brother. Declarations from Pinhol-ster’s siblings support his mother’s testimony that his stepfather was abusive and explain that Pinholster was beaten with fists, belts, and even wooden boards.
To the extent the state habeas record includes new factual allegations or evidence, much of it is of questionable mitigating value. If Pinholster had called Dr. Woods to testify consistently with his psychiatric report, Pinholster would have opened the door to rebuttal by a state expert. See, e.g., Wong v. Belmontes,
The remaining new material in the state habeas record is sparse. We learn that Pinholster’s brother Alvin died of suicide by drug overdose, and there are passing references to Pin-holster’s own drug dependency. According to Dr. Stalberg, Pinholster’s “school records” apparently evidenced “some degree” of brain damage. App. to Brief in Opposition 219. Mostly, there are just a few new details about Pinholster’s childhood. Pinholster apparently looked like his biological father, whom his grandparents “loathed.” Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus in No. S004616 (Cal.), Exh. 98, p. 1. Accordingly, whenever his grandparents “spanked or disciplined” the kids, Pinholster “always got the worst of it.” Ibid. Pinholster was mostly unsupervised and “didn’t get much love,” because his mother and stepfather were always working and “were more concerned with their own lives than the welfare of their kids.” Id., at 2. Neither parent
[
seemed concerned about Pinholster’s schooling. Finally, Pinholster’s aunt once saw the children mixing flour and water to make something to eat, although “[m]ost meals consisted of canned spaghetti and foods of that ilk.” Id., at 1.
Given what little additional mitigating evidence Pinholster presented in state habeas, we cannot say that the California Supreme Court’s determination was unreasonable. Having already heard much of what is included in the state habeas record, the jury returned a sentence of death. Moreover, some of the new testimony would likely have undercut the mitigating value of the testimony by Pin-holster’s mother. The new material is thus not so significant that, even assuming Pinholster’s trial counsel performed deficiently, it was necessarily unreasonable for the California Su
3
As with deficiency, the Court of Appeals found this case to be “materially indistinguishable” from Terry Williams and Rompilla v. Beard,
[
conclusion as an initial matter, it was not an unreasonable application of our precedent for the California Supreme Court to conclude that Pinholster did not establish prejudice.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Notes
Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan join only Part II.
. Although the California Supreme Court initially issued an order asking the State to respond, it ultimately withdrew that order as “improvidently issued.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 302.
. A majority also “[separately and independently’’ denied several claims, including penalty-phase ineffective assistance of counsel, as untimely, successive, and barred by res judicata. Id., at 300. The State has not argued that these procedural rulings constitute adequate and independent state grounds that bar federal habeas review.
. Justice Sotomayor argues that there is nothing strange about allowing consideration of new evidence under § 2254(d)(1) because, in her view, it would not be “so different’’ from some other tasks that courts undertake. Post, at 218,
. If a prisoner has “failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,’’ § 2254(e)(2) bars a federal court from holding an evidentiary hearing, unless the applicant meets certain statutory requirements.
. Justice Sotomayor’s suggestion that Michael Williams “rejected” the conclusion here, see post, at 220,
. In Bradshaw v. Richey,
. Pinholster and Justice Sotomayor place great weight on the fact that § 2254(d)(2) includes the language “in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” whereas § 2254(d)(1) does not. See post, at 211-212,
. Justice Sotomayor’s argument that § 2254(d)(1) must be read in a way that “accommodates” § 2254(e)(2), see post, at 214,
. In all events, of course, the requirements of §§ 2254(a) through (c) remain significant limitations on the power of a federal court to grant habeas relief.
. Though we do not decide where to draw the line between new claims and claims adjudicated on the merits, see n. 11, infra, Justice Sotomayor’s hypothetical involving new evidence of withheld exculpatory witness statements, see post, at 214-215,
. The State does not contest that the alleged claim was adjudicated on the merits by the California Supreme Court, but it asserts that some of the evidence adduced in the federal evidentiary hearing fundamentally changed Pinholster’s claim so as to render it effectively unadjudicated. See Brief for Petitioner 28-31; Reply Brief for Petitioner 4-5; Tr. of Oral Arg. 18. Pinholster disagrees and argues that the evidence adduced in the evidentiary hearing simply supports his alleged claim. Brief for Respondent 33-37.
We need not resolve this dispute because, even accepting Pinholster’s position, he is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Pinholster has failed to show that the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law on the record before that court, infra, at 190-194, 197-202,
. The parties agree that the state-court record includes both the “allegations of [the] habeas corpus petition . . . and . . . ‘any matter of record pertaining to the case.’ ’’ In re Hochberg,
The specific contents of the state-court record depend on which of the two state habeas proceedings is at issue. One amicus curiae suggests that both are at issue—that is, Pinholster must prove that both California Supreme Court proceedings involved an unreasonable application of law under § 2254(d)(1). See Brief for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation 26. By contrast, the most favorable approach for Pinholster would be review of only the second state habeas proceeding, the record of which includes all of the evidence that Pinholster ever submitted in state habeas. We have not previously ruled on how to proceed in these circumstances, and we need not do so here. Even taking the approach most favorable to Pinholster, and reviewing only whether the California Supreme Court was objectively unreasonable in the second state habeas proceeding, we find that Pinholster has failed to satisfy § 2254(d)(1).
. Counsel’s argument was persuasive enough to cause the trial court to hold a hearing and take testimony before denying the motion to exclude.
. Both parties agree that these billing records were before the California Supreme Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 45, 48-49.
. See Clerk’s Tr. 798 (entry on Jan. 13 for “phone call to defendant’s mother re medical history’’); id., at 864 (entries on Feb. 21 for “Penal Code research on capital punishment’’; Feb. 23 for “conference with defendant’s mother re childhood problems’’; Feb. 25 for “Research on Pen. C. 190.3’’; and Feb. 29 for “photocopying reports for appointed expert,’’ “Preparation of Declaration and Order for appointment of psychiatrist,’’ “Preparation order of visitation for investigator,’’ and “Further research on Pen. C. 190.3’’). The time records for Dettmar unfortunately stop with March 14, so we do not know what he did during the critical weeks leading up to the penalty phase on May 1.
. See id., at 869 (entries on Feb. 23 for “Conf. with Bernice Brashear, Pinholster’s mother’’; and Feb. 25 for “Research re; epilepsy and conf. with nurse’’); id., at 1160 (entries on Apr. 11 for “Start prep, for penalty phase’’; Apr. 25 for “Prep, penalty phase and conf. with Mrs. Brashear’’; and Apr. 26 for “Prep, penalty phase’’).
. The Court of Appeals was not necessarily wrong in looking to other precedents of this Court for guidance, but “the Strickland test ‘of necessity requires a case-by-case examination of the
. Pinholster’s wife waived her spousal privilege to testify to this fact. She acknowledged that her testimony would be used to argue that her husband should be executed.
. Justice Sotomayor criticizes Brashear’s testimony as “self-interested,” post, at 235,
. Because Pinholster has failed to demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim based on the state-court record resulted in a decision “contrary to’’ or “involvpng] an unreasonable application’’ of federal law, a writ of habeas corpus “shall not be granted’’ and our analysis is at an end. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We are barred from considering the evidence Pinholster submitted in the District Court that he contends additionally supports his claim. For that reason, we need not decide whether § 2254(e)(2) prohibited the District Court from holding the evidentiary hearing or whether a district court may ever choose to hold an evidentiary hearing before it determines that § 2254(d) has been satisfied.
Concurrence Opinion
SEPARATE OPINIONS
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Although I concur in the Court’s judgment, I agree with the conclusion reached in Part I of the dissent, namely, that, when an evidentiary hearing is properly held in federal court, review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) must take into account the evidence admitted at that hearing. As the dissent points out, refusing to consider the evidence received in the hearing in federal court gives § 2254(e)(2) an implausibly narrow scope and will lead either to results that Congress surely did not intend or to the distortion of other provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, and the law on “cause and
Under AEDPA evidentiary hearings in federal court should be rare. The petitioner generally must have made a diligent effort to produce in state court the new evidence on which he seeks to rely. See § 2254(e)(2); Williams v. Taylor,
[
Even when the petitioner does satisfy the diligence standard adopted in Williams v. Taylor, supra, a hearing should not be held in federal court unless the new evidence that the petitioner seeks to introduce was not and could not have been offered in the state-court proceeding. Section 2254(e)(2) bars a hearing in certain situations, but it does not mean that a hearing is allowed in all other situations. See Schriro v. Landrigan,
In this case, for essentially the reasons set out in the dissent from the Court of Appeals’ en banc decision, see Pinholster v. Ayers,
Concurrence in Part
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion. I do not join Part III, for I would send this case back to the Court of
[
Appeals so that it can apply the legal standards that Part II announces to the complex facts of this case. Compare ante, at 187-203,
Like the Court, I believe that its understanding of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) does not leave AEDPA’s hearing section, § 2254(e), without work to do. An offender who believes he is entitled to habeas relief must first present a claim (including his evidence) to the state courts. If the state courts reject the claim, then a federal habeas court may review that rejection on the basis of the materials considered by the state court. If the federal habeas court finds that the state-court decision fails (d)’s test (or if (d) does not apply), then an (e) hearing may be needed.
For example, if the state-court rejection assumed the habeas petitioner’s facts (deciding that, even ¿/those
In this case, however, we cannot say whether an (e) hearing is needed until we know whether the state court, in rejecting Pinholster’s claim on the basis presented to that state court, violated (d). (In my view, the lower courts’ analysis in respect to this matter is inadequate.)
[
There is no role in (d) analysis for a habeas petitioner to introduce evidence that was not first presented to the state courts. But that does not mean that Pinholster is without recourse to present new evidence. He can always return to state court presenting new evidence not previously presented. If the state court again denies relief, he might be able to return to federal court to make claims related to the latest rejection, subject to AEDPA’s limitations on successive petitions. See § 2244.
I am not trying to predict the future course of these proceedings. I point out only that, in my view, AEDPA is not designed to take necessary remedies from a habeas petitioner but to give the State a first opportunity to consider most matters and to insist that federal courts properly respect state-court determinations.
Dissenting Opinion
with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan join as to Part II, dissenting.
Some habeas petitioners are unable to develop the factual basis of their claims in state court through no fault of their own. Congress recognized as much when it enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, and permitted therein the introduction of new evidence in federal habeas proceedings in certain limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Under the Court’s novel interpretation of § 2254(d)(1), however, federal courts must turn a blind eye to new evidence in deciding whether a petitioner has satisfied § 2254(d)(l)’s threshold obstacle to federal habeas relief—even when it is clear that the petitioner would be entitled to relief in light of that evidence. In reading the statute to “competí]” this harsh result, ante, at 182,
[
I also disagree with the Court that, even if the § 2254(d)(1) analysis is limited to the state-court record, respondent Scott Pinholster failed to demonstrate that the California Supreme Court’s decision denying his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
I
The Court first holds that, in determining whether a state-court decision is an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under § 2254(d)(1), “review ... is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Ante, at 181,
A
To understand the significance of the majority’s holding, it is important to view the issue in context. AEDPA’s entire structure—which gives state courts the opportunity to decide factual and legal questions in the first instance—ensures that evidentiary hearings in federal habeas proceedings are very rare. See N. King, F. Cheesman, & B. Ostrom, Final Technical Report: Habeas Litigation in U. S. District Courts 35-36 (2007) (evidentiary hearings under AEDPA occur in 0.4 percent of noncapital cases and 9.5 percent of capital cases). Even absent the new restriction created by today’s holding, AEDPA erects multiple hurdles to a state prisoner’s ability to introduce new evidence in a federal habeas proceeding.
[
First, “[u]nder the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner challenging a state conviction must first attempt to present his claim in state court.” Harrington v. Richter,
Second, the exhaustion requirement is “complement[ed]” by the standards set forth in § 2254(d). Harrington,
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
“(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of*587 the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
These standards “control whether to grant habeas relief.” Schriro v. Landrigan,
[
whether the evidence the petitioner seeks to present would satisfy AED-PA’s demanding standards, they would needlessly prolong federal ha-beas proceedings.
Third, even when a petitioner seeks to introduce new evidence that would entitle him to relief, AEDPA prohibits him from doing so, except in a narrow range of cases, unless he “made a reasonable attempt, in light of the information available at the time, to investigate and pursue claims in state court.” Williams v. Taylor,
“If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that—
“(A) the claim relies on—
“(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
“(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and
“(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
In Michael Williams, we construed the opening clause of this provision— which triggers the bar on evidentiary hearings—to apply when “there is lack of diligence, or some greater fault, attributable to the prisoner or the prisoner’s counsel.”
[
satisfy both §§ 2254(e)(2)(A) and (B), which few petitioners can. Section 2254(e)(2) in this way incentivizes state petitioners to develop the factual basis of their claims in state court.
To the limited extent that federal evidentiary hearings are available under AEDPA, they ensure that petitioners who diligently developed the factual basis of their claims in state court, discovered new evidence after the state-court proceeding, and cannot return to state court retain the ability to access the Great Writ. See ante, at 203-204,
B
The majority’s interpretation of § 2254(d)(1) finds no support in the provision’s text or the statute’s structure as a whole.
1
Section 2254(d)(1) requires district courts to ask whether a state-court adjudication on the merits “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by
[
the Supreme Court of the United States.” Because this provision uses “backward-looking language”—i.e., past-tense verbs—the majority believes that it limits review to the state-court record. Ante, at 182,
Ignoring our usual “reluctan[ce] to treat statutory terms as surplusage in any setting,” TRW Inc. v. Andrews,
[
§ 2254(d)(1), it is all the more telling that Congress included this phrase in § 2254(d)(2) but elected to exclude it from § 2254(d)(1).
Unlike my colleagues in the majority, I refuse to assume that Congress simply engaged in sloppy drafting. The inclusion of this phrase in § 2254(d)(2)—coupled with its omission from § 2254(d)(2)’s partner provision, § 2254(d)(1)—provides strong reason to think that Congress did not intend for the § 2254(d)(1) analysis to be limited categorically to “the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
2
The “ ‘broader context of the statute as a whole,’ ” ante, at 182,
We have long recognized that some diligent habeas petitioners are unable to develop all of the facts supporting their claims in state court.
[
see also § 2254(e)(2). Importantly, it did not impose any express limit on eviden-tiary hearings for petitioners who had been diligent in state court. See id., at 436,
Faced with situations in which a diligent petitioner offers additional evidence in federal court, the courts of appeals have taken two approaches to applying § 2254(d)(1). Some courts have held that when a federal court admits new evidence supporting a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court, § 2254(d)(1) does not apply at all and the federal court may review the claim de novo. See ante, at 184,
Other Courts of Appeals, including the court below, have struck a more considered balance. These courts have held that § 2254(d)(1) continues to apply but that new evidence properly presented in a federal hearing is relevant to the
[
reasonableness of the state-court decision. See Pinholster v. Ayers,
The majority charts a third, novel course that, so far as I am aware, no court of appeals has adopted: Section 2254(d)(1) continues to apply when a petitioner has additional evidence that he was unable to present to the state court, but the district court cannot consider that evidence in deciding whether the petitioner has satisfied § 2254(d)(1). The problem with this approach is its potential to bar federal habeas relief for diligent habeas petitioners who cannot present new evidence to a state court.
Consider, for example, a petitioner who diligently attempted in state court to develop the factual basis of a claim that prosecutors withheld exculpatory witness statements in violation of Brady v. Maryland,
[
the peti
Under our precedent, if the petitioner had not presented his Brady claim to the state court at all, his claim would be deemed defaulted, and the petitioner could attempt to show cause and prejudice to overcome the default. See Michael Williams,
The majority’s interpretation of § 2254(d)(1) thus suggests the anomalous result that petitioners with new claims based on newly obtained evidence can obtain federal habeas relief if they can show cause and prejudice for their default but petitioners with newly obtained evidence supporting a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court cannot obtain federal ha-beas relief if they cannot first satisfy § 2254(d)(1) without the new evidence. That the majority’s interpretation leads to this anomaly is good reason to conclude that its interpretation is wrong. See Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes,
[
The majority responds to this anomaly by suggesting that my hypothetical petitioner “may well [have] a new claim.”
The majority’s reading of § 2254(d)(1) appears ultimately to rest on its understanding that state courts must have the first opportunity to adjudicate habeas petitioners’ claims. See ante, at 182,
[
the first instance effectively de novo”).
3
These considerations lead me to agree with the Courts of Appeals that have concluded that a federal court should assess the reasonableness of a state court’s application of clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) in light of evidence properly admitted in a federal evidentiary hearing. There is nothing “strange” about this approach. Ante, at 182,
[
claim. Harrington,
Admittedly, the text of § 2254(d)(1), standing alone, does not compel either reading of that provision. But construing § 2254(d)(1) to permit consideration of evidence properly introduced in federal court best accords with the text of § 2254(d)(2) and AE-DPA’s structure as a whole. By interpreting § 2254(d)(1) to prevent non-diligent petitioners from gaming the system—the very purpose of § 2254(e)(2)—the majority potentially has put habeas relief out of reach for diligent petitioners with meritorious claims based on new evidence.
C
The majority claims that its holding is “consistent” with our case law. Ante, at 182,
In Landrigan, Justice Thomas, the author of today’s opinion, confirmed this understanding of the interplay between §§ 2254(d)(1) and 2254(e)(2). As noted above, we admonished district courts to consider whether a petitioner’s allegations, if proved true, would satisfy § 2254(d) in determining whether to grant a hearing. After highlighting the deference owed to state courts under §§ 2254(d) and 2254(e)(1), we stated:
“In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing
[563 U.S. 219 ]
could enable an applicant to prove the petition’s factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief. Because the deferential standards prescribed by § 2254 control whether to grant habeas relief, a federal court must take into account those standards in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.”550 U.S., at 474 ,127 S. Ct. 1933 ,167 L. Ed. 2d 836 (citation omitted).
By instructing district courts to consider the § 2254(d) standards in deciding whether to grant a hearing, we must have understood that the evidence admitted at a hearing could be considered in the § 2254(d)(1) analysis. See Brief for American Civil Liberties Union as Amicus Curiae 9 (“The whole point of Landrigan’s admonition that the court must decide whether to hold a hearing with an eye on § 2254(d)( 1) is that some proffers of evidence will not justify federal fact-finding in view of § 2254(d)(1), but that other proffers of proof will”).
In Michael Williams, the warden argued that § 2254(e)(2) bars an evi-dentiary hearing whenever a petitioner was unable to develop the factual record in state court, “whether or not through his own fault or neglect.”
*594 “A prisoner who developed his claim in state court and can prove the state court’s decision was ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,’ is not barred from obtaining relief
[563 U.S. 220 ]
by § 2254(d)(1). If the opening clause of § 2254(e)(2) covers a request for an evidentiary hearing on a claim which was pursued with diligence but remained undeveloped in state court because, for instance, the prosecution concealed the facts, a prisoner lacking clear and convincing evidence of innocence could be barred from a hearing on the claim even if he could satisfy § 2254(d).” Id., at 434,120 S. Ct. 1479 ,146 L. Ed. 2d 435 (citation omitted; emphasis added).
A petitioner in the latter situation would almost certainly be unable to “satisfy § 2254(d)” without introducing the concealed facts in federal court. This passage thus reflects our understanding that, in some circumstances, a petitioner might need an evidentiary hearing in federal court to prove the facts necessary to satisfy § 2254(d). To avoid foreclosing habeas relief for such petitioners, we concluded that § 2254(e)(2) could not bear the warden’s “harsh reading,” which essentially would have held petitioners strictly at fault for their inability to develop the facts in state court. Ibid. The majority today gives an equally “harsh reading” to § 2254(d)(1) to achieve the result we rejected in Michael Williams)
None of the other cases cited by the majority supports its result. In Williams v. Taylor,
[
at 413,
In Holland v. Jackson, we stated that “we have made clear that whether a state court’s decision was unreasonable must be assessed in light of the record the court had before it.”
In sum, our cases reflect our recognition that it is sometimes appropriate to consider new evidence in deciding whether a petitioner can satisfy § 2254(d)(1). In reading our precedent to require the opposite conclusion, the majority disregards the concerns that motivated our decision in Michael Williams: Some petitioners, even if diligent, may be unable to develop the factual record in state court through no fault of their own. We should not interpret § 2254(d)(1) to foreclose these diligent petitioners from accessing the Great Writ when the state court will not consider the new evidence and could not reasonably have reached the same conclusion with the new evidence before it.
II
I also disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Pinholster had satisfied § 2254(d)(1) on the basis of the state-court record.
[
A
The majority omits critical details relating to the performance of Pinhol-ster’s trial counsel, the mitigating evidence they failed to discover, and the history of these proceedings. I therefore highlight several aspects of the facts and history of this case.
1
After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the court instructed the jury to return six days later for the penalty phase. This prompted discussion at sidebar regarding whether the State had provided notice of its intent to offer aggravating evidence. Pinhol-ster’s court-appointed attorney, Wilbur Dettmar, argued that the State should be precluded from offering aggravating evidence:
“I am not presently prepared to offer anything by way of mitigation. If I was going to proceed on mitigation, the people would have the right to rebuttal with or without notice.
“I took the position, since the people had not given notice, I had not prepared, any evidence by way of mitigation. I would submit it on that basis.” 52 Reporter’s Tr. 7250 (hereinafter Tr.) (emphasis added).
[563 U.S. 223 ]
Undoubtedly anticipating that counsel might need additional time to prepare an adequate mitigation defense, the court asked Dettmar whether a continuance would be helpful in the event it ruled against him. He de-
At the penalty phase, defense counsel called only one witness: Pinhol-ster’s mother, Burnice Brashear. Brashear testified that Pinholster “never really wanted for anything at home too much” and “had everything normally materialwise that most people have.” Id., at 7395. She said that Pinholster was “different” from his siblings, whom she characterized as “basically very good children.” Id., at 7401-7402. Pinholster, she said, had a “friendly” relationship with his stepfather, although his stepfather “sometimes would lose his temper” with Pinholster, who “had a mind of his own.” Id., at 7392-7393; see also id., at 7393 (stating that his stepfather was “at times” “abusive or near abusive”).
Brashear provided brief testimony regarding Pinholster’s childhood. She described two car accidents—one when she ran over him in the driveway and one when he went through the windshield. Id., at 7389-7391. She stated that he started failing school in the first grade and that the school eventually “sent him to [an] educationally handicapped class.” Id., at 7393-7394. When Pinholster was 10, a psychologist recommended placing him in a mental institution, but she “didn’t think he was that far gone.” Id., at 7395. A few years later, she testified, he spent six months in a state hospital for emotionally handicapped children. Id., at 7402.
According to Brashear, Pinholster had suffered from epilepsy since age 18, when he was beaten in jail. Id., at 7397.
[
She said that her family doctor, Dr. Dubin, had given him medication to treat the epilepsy. Ibid. Bras-hear also suggested that Pinholster did not have long to live, stating that he had “a chip in his head floating around” and that “they don’t think—he won’t be here very much longer anyway.”
In closing argument, the prosecutor ridiculed Brashear’s testimony. See 53 id., at 7442 (“She said his stepfather disciplined him. So what? I am sure you have all disciplined your children. I was disciplined myself’); ibid. (“He was run over by a car when he was three years old. That’s very unfortunate. There is no evidence of any brain damage. A lot of children get dropped, fall from their cribs or whatever”); id., at 7444-7445 (“I submit to you that if this defendant truly had epilepsy, ... a doctor would have been brought in to tell you that. Medical records, something”). The prosecutor also highlighted Brashear’s testimony about Pinholster’s stable home environment, arguing: “He came from a good home. You heard that he was not a deprived child. Had many things going for him, probably more than many children.” Id., at 7442.
Notwithstanding the meager mitigation case presented by Pinholster’s counsel, it took the jury two days to reach a decision to sentence Pinhol-
[
2
After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, Pinholster filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court alleging, among other things, that his counsel had “unreasonably failed to investigate, prepare and present available mitigating evidence during penalty phase.” Record ER-103.
Pinholster’s state-court petition included 121 exhibits. In a series of declarations, his trial attorney Harry Brainard (who had by then been disbarred) confirmed what Dettmar had forthrightly told the trial court: Brainard and Dettmar neither expected nor prepared to present mitigation evidence.
[
Statements by relatives (none of whom trial counsel had attempted to interview regarding Pinholster’s background) and documentary evidence revealed that the picture of Pinholster’s family life painted by his mother at trial was false. Pinholster was “raised in chaos and poverty.” Id., at ER-312. A relative remembered seeing the children mix together flour and water in an attempt to get something to eat. Pinholster’s stepfather beat him several times a week, including at least once with a two-by-four board. “There was so much violence in [the] home” that Pinholster’s brother “dreaded coming home each day.” Id.., at ER-313. Pinholster’s half sister was removed from the home as a result of a beating by his stepfather.
Documentary evidence showed, directly contrary to Brashear’s trial testimony, that Pinholster’s siblings had
Pinholster’s petition and exhibits described a long history of emotional disturbance and neurological problems. A former schoolteacher stated that, as a child, Pinholster “seemed incapable of relating either to his peers or to adults,” that “[i]t was even hard to maintain eye contact with him,” and that “[h]is hyperactivity was so extreme that [she] formed the opinion it probably had an organic base.” Id., at ER-231. School records revealed that he “talk[ed] to self continuously,” had “many grimaces,” fought in his sleep, and could
[
“control self for only 1 hour per day.” Id., at ER-230, ER-233. He “show[ed] progressive deterioration each semester since Kindergarten.” Id., at ER-230. School officials recommended placement in a school for emotionally handicapped students and referral to a neurologist. At age 9, he had an abnormal EEG, revealing “an organic basis for his behavior.” Id., at ER-157, ER-234. Just months before the homicides, a doctor recommended placement in the Hope Psychiatric Institute, but this did not occur.
This and other evidence attached to the petition was summarized in a declaration by Dr. George Woods. Dr. Woods opined that Pinholster “suffer [ed] from severe and long standing seizure disorders,” id., at ER-156, that his childhood head traumas “may have been the precipitating factors for [his] seizure disorder,” id., at ER-157, and that he suffered from bipolar mood disorder. He pointed to trial testimony that immediately before the burglary on the night of the homicides, Pinholster announced that he “ ‘ha[d] a message from God’ ”—which Dr. Woods believed to reflect “[a]udi-tory hallucinations” and “severe psychosis.” Id., at ER-169. He concluded that at the time of the homicides Pinholster “was suffering from bipolar mood disorder with psychotic ide-ation and was suffering a complex partial seizure.” Id., at ER-170. He also observed that Pinholster’s “grossly dysfunctional family, the abuse he received as a child, his history of suffering from substantial seizure and mood disorders, his frequently untreated psychiatric and psychological disabilities and his educational handicaps were relevant circumstances which would extenuate the gravity of the crime.” Id., at ER-171.
On the basis of Pinholster’s submission, the California Supreme Court denied Pinholster’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
Pinholster then filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court. He included an additional exhibit: a declaration by Dr. John Stalberg, a psychiatrist who had hastily examined
[
Pinholster and produced a two-page report in the middle of the original
The District Court stayed the federal proceedings while Pinholster sought state-court review of claims the District Court deemed unex-hausted. Pinholster’s second habeas submission to the California Supreme Court included Stalberg’s declaration. That court summarily denied Pinhol-ster’s petition on the merits.
Pinholster returned to Federal District Court and filed an amended petition. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court concluded that Pin-holster had demonstrated deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland.
[
B
As the majority notes, Pinholster’s claim arises under Strickland, v. Washington. “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness [under Strickland] must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”
When § 2254(d)(1) applies, the question is whether “ ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Harrington,
Under Strickland, “the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” measured according to “prevailing professional norms.”
[
argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.” Harrington,
The majority surmises that counsel decided on a strategy “to get the prosecution’s aggravation witnesses excluded for lack of notice, and if that failed, to put on Pinholster’s mother.” Ante, at 191,
In any event, even if Pinholster’s counsel had a strategic reason for their actions, that would not automatically render their actions reasonable. For example, had counsel decided their best option was to move to exclude the aggravating
[
evidence, it would have been unreasonable to forgo a mitigation investigation on the hope that the motion would be granted. With a client’s life at stake, it would “flou[t] prudence,” Rompilla v. Beard,
Instead, I understand the majority’s conclusion that counsel’s actions were reasonable to rest on its belief that they did have a backup plan: a family-sympathy defense. In reaching this conclusion, the majority commits the same Strickland error that we corrected, applying § 2254(d)(1), in Wiggins: It holds a purportedly “tactical judgment” to be reasonable without assessing “the adequacy of the investigado[n] supporting [that] judgment,”
“[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.”466 U.S., at 690-691 ,104 S. Ct. 2052 ,80 L. Ed. 2d 674 .
We have repeatedly applied this principle since Strickland. See Sears v. Upton,
[
Wiggins,
As these cases make clear, the prevailing professional norms at the time of Pinholster’s trial required his attorneys to “conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant’s background,” ibid, (citing 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-4.1, commentary, p. 4-55 (2d ed. 1980) (hereinafter ABA Standards)), or “to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary,” Strickland,
Wiggins is illustrative of the competence we have required of counsel in a capital case. There, counsel’s investigation
[
was limited to three sources: psychological testing, a presentencing report, and Baltimore City Department of Social Services records.
This case is remarkably similar to Wiggins. As the majority reads the record, counsel’s mitigation investigation consisted of talking to Pinhol-ster’s mother, consulting with Dr. Stalberg, and researching epilepsy.
[
“[A]ny reasonably competent attorney would have realized that pursuing” the leads suggested by this information “was necessary to making an informed choice among possible defenses.” Id., at 525,
The “impediments” facing counsel, ante, at 193,
“The record of the actual sentencing proceedings underscores the unreasonableness of counsel’s conduct by suggesting
[
that their failure to investigate thoroughly resulted from inattention, not reasoned strategic judgment.” Wiggins,
In denying Pinholster’s claim, the California Supreme Court necessarily overlooked Strickland’s clearly established admonition that “strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations.”
[
D
The majority also concludes that the California Supreme Court could reasonably have concluded that Pin-holster did not state a claim of prejudice. This conclusion, in light of the overwhelming mitigating evidence that was not before the jury, is wrong. To establish prejudice, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id., at 694,
1
Like the majority, I first consider the aggravating and mitigating evidence presented at trial. By virtue of its verdict in the guilt phase, the jury had already concluded that Pinhol-ster had stabbed and killed the victims. As the majority states, the jury saw Pinholster “revel” in his history of burglaries during the guilt phase. Ante, at 198,
[
to kill the State’s lead witness. And he had an extensive disciplinary record in jail.
Brashear offered brief testimony that was apparently intended to be mitigating. See supra, at 224,
[
Moreover, the evidence presented in Pinholster’s state-court petition revealed that Brashear distorted facts in her testimony in ways that undermined Pinholster’s mitigation case. As in Sears,
In sum, counsel presented little in the way of mitigating evidence, and the prosecutor effectively used their halfhearted attempt to present a mitigation case to advocate for the death penalty. The jury nonetheless took two days to reach a decision to impose a death sentence.
2
The additional mitigating evidence presented to the California Supreme Court “adds up to a mitigation case that bears no relation” to Brashear’s unsubstantiated testimony. Rompilla,
Assuming the evidence presented to the California Supreme Court to be true, as that court was required to do, the new mitigating evidence presented to that court would have shown that Pinholster was raised in “chaos and poverty.” Record ER-312. The family home was filled with violence. Pinholster’s siblings had extremely troubled pasts. There was substantial evidence of “mental disturbance during Mr. Pinholster’s childhood and some degree of brain damage.” Id., at ER-493.
Dr. Woods concluded that Pinhol-ster’s aggressive conduct resulted from bipolar mood disorder. Just months before the murders, a doctor had recommended that Pinholster be sent to a psychiatric institute. Dr. Woods also explained that Pinhol-ster’s bizarre behavior before the murders reflected “[a]uditory hallucinations” and “severe psychosis.” Id., at ER-169. The available records confirmed that Pinholster suffered from longstanding seizure disorders, which may have been caused by his childhood head injuries.
[
On this record, I do not see how it can be said that “ [t]he ‘new’ evidence largely duplicated the mitigation evidence at trial.” Ante, at 200,
The majority responds that “much” of Pinholster’s new mitigating evidence “is of questionable mitigating value.” Ante, at 201,
[
Had counsel conducted an adequate investigation, the judge and jury would have heard credible evidence showing that Pinholster’s criminal acts and aggressive tendencies were “attributable to a disadvantaged background, or to emotional and mental problems.” Penry,
The majority does not dispute the similarity between this case and the cited cases. However, it criticizes the Court of Appeals for relying on Rompilla and Terry Williams on the ground that we reviewed the prejudice question de novo in those cases. See ante, at 202,
[
court has unreasonably determined that prejudice is lacking.” Ante, at 202,
In many cases, a state court presented with additional mitigation evidence will reasonably conclude that there is no “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland,
[
least one juror would have struck a different balance.” Wiggins,
Ill
The state-court record on its own was more than adequate to support the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that
A
At the hearing, Pinholster offered many of the same documents that were before the state habeas court. He also offered his trial attorneys’ billing records, which were before the state habeas court as part of the trial record. Of the seven lay witnesses who testified at the hearing, six had previously executed declarations in support of Pinholster’s state-court petition. (The seventh, Pinholster’s uncle, provided testimony cumulative of other testimony.)
Two experts testified on Pinhol-ster’s behalf; neither had presented declarations to the state habeas court. The first was Dr. Donald Olson, assistant professor of neurology and neurological sciences and director of the Pediatric Epilepsy Program at Stanford University Medical Center. It appears that Pinholster retained Dr. Olson to rebut the testimony of the expert disclosed by the State in the federal proceeding. See Decl. of Michael D. Abzug in Support of Stipulated Ex Parte Application To Continue Evidentiary Hearing and Discovery Cut-Off and To Substitute Counsel in Pinholster v. Calderon, No. CV 95-6240-GLT (CD Cal.), p. 2. Relying in part on Pinholster’s abnormal EEG, Dr. Olson opined that Pinhol-ster’s childhood accidents “likely result[ed] in brain injury” and that these injuries “conferred a risk of epilepsy.” Record ER-699 to ER-700. He concluded that it was reasonably probable that Pinholster had suffered from partial
[
epilepsy since at least 1968 and had suffered from brain injury since at least 1964. Id., at ER-701.
Pinholster’s second expert was Dr. Sophia Vinogradov, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Vino-gradov’s testimony was based on essentially the same facts as Dr. Woods’ and Dr. Stalberg’s state-court declarations. She highlighted Pinholster’s childhood head traumas, history of epilepsy, abusive and neglected upbringing, history of substance abuse, and bizarre behavior on the night of the homicides. She opined that his aggressive behavior resulted from childhood head traumas:
“All data indicates that there were severe effects of the two serious head injuries sustained at age 2 and age 3, with evidence for behavioral changes related to dysfunction of frontal cortex: severe attentional and learning problems in childhood, hyperactivity, aggressivity, impul-sivity, social-emotional impairment, seizure disorder, and explosive dyscontrol.” Id., at ER-731.
She also opined that, right before the homicides, Pinholster was in an “apparently hallucinatory state [that] was likely the result of his intoxication with multiple substances.”Id., at ER-707.
The State presented two experts: Dr. Stalberg, the psychiatrist who had examined Pinholster in the middle of trial,
[
that
The State also introduced into evidence the 1978 probation report that Pinholster’s counsel had in their possession at the time of his trial. The report demonstrated that counsel were aware that Pinholster was in classes for educationally handicapped children, that he was committed to a state hospital for emotionally handicapped children, and that he suffered two “severe head injuries.” Id., at SER-243.
B
Much of the evidence presented at the federal hearing was duplicative of the evidence submitted to the California Supreme Court. The additional evidence presented at the hearing only confirmed that the California Supreme Court could not reasonably have rejected Pinholster’s claim.
[
For example, the probation report presented by the State confirmed that counsel had in their possession information that would have led any reasonable attorney “to investigate further.” Wiggins,
Pinholster’s experts opined that his childhood head traumas likely resulted in brain injury and conferred a
In sum, the evidence confirmed what was already apparent from the state-court record: Pinholster’s counsel failed to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation, and there was a reasonable probability that at least one juror confronted with the “voluminous” mitigating evidence counsel should have discovered would have voted to spare Pinholster’s life. Ibid. Accordingly, whether on the basis of the state- or federal-court record, the courts below correctly concluded that Pinholster had shown that the California Supreme
[
Court’s decision reflected an unreasonable application of Strickland.
I cannot agree with either aspect of the Court’s ruling. I fear the consequences of the Court’s novel interpretation of § 2254(d)( 1) for diligent state habeas petitioners with compelling evidence supporting their claims who were unable, through no fault of their own, to present that evidence to the state court that adjudicated their claims. And the Court’s conclusion that the California Supreme Court reasonably denied Pinholster’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim overlooks counsel’s failure to investigate obvious avenues of mitigation and the contrast between the woefully inadequate mitigation case they presented and the evidence they should and would have discovered. I respectfully dissent.
. Relatedly, a state prisoner must, as a general matter, properly exhaust his federal claims in state court to avoid having his claim defaulted on procedural grounds. See Coleman v. Thompson,
. Section 2254(e)(2) also governs an attempt to obtain relief “based on new evidence without an evidentiary hearing.’’ Holland v. Jackson,
. See, e.g., nn. 5, 7, and 13, infra.
. See, e.g., Michael Williams,
. Of course, § 2254(d)(1) only applies when a state court has adjudicated a claim on the merits. There may be situations in which new evidence supporting a claim adjudicated on the merits gives rise to an altogether different claim. See, e.g., Reply Brief for Petitioner 10-11 (evidence withheld by the prosecutor relating to one claim may give rise to a separate claim under Brady v. Maryland,
I assume that the majority does not intend to suggest that review is limited to the state-court record when a petitioner’s inability to develop the facts supporting his claim was the fault of the state court itself. See generally Tr. of Oral Arg. in Bell v. Kelly, O. T. 2008, No. 07-1223.
. See, e.g., id., at 37-38 (statement by counsel for the respondent warden that Virginia law bars all successive habeas applications, even in cases where the petitioner has new evidence).
. The majority declines, however, to provide any guidance to the lower courts on how to distinguish claims adjudicated on the merits from new claims.
. Even if it can fairly be argued that my hypothetical petitioner has a new claim, the majority fails to explain how a diligent petitioner with new evidence supporting an existing claim can present his new evidence to a federal court.
. In this vein, it is the majority’s approach that “would not take seriously AEDPA’s requirement that federal courts defer to state-court decisions.’’ Ante, at 183, n. 3,
. Under my reading of § 2254(d)(1), of course, the district court would review properly admitted new evidence through the deferential lens of § 2254(d)(1), not de novo.
. The majority overlooks this aspect of Landrigan. It quotes Landrigan s observation that “if the record refutes the applicant’s factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing,’’
. The majority claims that Michael Williams supports its reading of § 2254(d)( 1). With respect to one claim asserted by the petitioner, we observed that “[t]he Court of Appeals rejected this claim on the merits under § 2254(d)(1), so it is unnecessary to reach the question whether § 2254(e)(2) would permit a hearing on the claim.”
. I agree with the majority that the state-court record in this case consists of “the ‘allegations of [the] habeas corpus petition . . . and . . . any matter of record pertaining to the case.’ "Ante, at 188, n. 12,
The majority does not decide which of the two state-court decisions should be reviewed. See ante, at 187, n. 11,
. The judge instructed the jury to disregard this testimony upon motion by the prosecutor, but the prosecutor then discussed the testimony in her closing argument. See infra, at 237,
. By the time of Pinholster’s state-court habeas petition, Dettmar was deceased.
. Counsel’s billing records, which were before the California Supreme Court as part of the trial record, confirmed Brainard’s recollection.
. According to Pinholster’s half sister, “The death of our brother Alvin was a severe emotional blow to me and to Scott. I believed Scott’s substance abuse (heroin) arose following and as a result of Alvin’s death.’’ Record ER-314.
. Counsel had arranged for Dr. Stalberg to examine Pinholster in the middle of his original trial. The only documents they provided to him were police reports relating to the case and a 1978 probation report. In a two-page report that focused primarily on Pinholster’s mental state at the time of the offenses, Dr. Stalberg concluded that Pinholster had “psychopathic personality traits.’’ Id., at ER-187.
. The District Court based its decision on the evidence adduced at an evidentiary hearing. The District Court did not apply 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) because it thought, erroneously, that the California Supreme Court had not adjudicated Pinholster’s claim on the merits. App. to Pet. for Cert. 257. For the reasons I discuss, however, the District Court could have concluded that Pinholster had satisfied § 2254(d)(1) on the basis of the state-court record alone.
. The majority misleadingly cites entries showing that counsel were preparing Brashear’s penalty phase testimony after counsel learned that the State intended to present aggravation evidence. The cited entries predating that event show only that counsel conducted about one day’s worth of investigation—consisting of talking to Brashear and researching epilepsy—two months before the penalty phase. See Clerk’s Tr. 798 (1.5-hour phone call to Brashear on Jan. 13); id., at 864, 869 (3-hour meeting with Brashear regarding “childhood problems’’ on Feb. 23); id., at 869 (3.5 hours for “[r]esearch re; epilepsy and conf. with nurse’’ on Feb. 25). There is no evidence in the records that counsel actually planned to present mitigating evidence. Indeed, their complete failure to follow up on any of the information they learned in their minimal investigation only confirms that they were not planning to present mitigating evidence. See infra, at 234-235,
. I do not doubt that a decision to present a family-sympathy mitigation defense might be consistent “with the standard of professional competence in capital cases that prevailed in Los Angeles in 1984’’ in some cases. Ante, at 196,
. See also 1 ABA Standards 4-4.1, commentary, at 4-55 (“Information concerning the defendant’s background, education, employment record, mental and emotional stability, family relationships, and the like, will be relevant, as will mitigating circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense itself’). As we recognized in Strickland, the ABA Standards, though not dispositive, “are guides to determining what is reasonable.’’
. As the majority notes, see ante, at 196,
. The majority also posits that Brainard likely spent time preparing Pinholster’s brother Terry. However, Terry averred in a declaration that Pinholster’s attorneys “never asked [him] any questions relating to Scott’s background or [their] family history.’’ Record ER-313.
. The majority chastises the Court of Appeals for “attributing strict rules to this Court’s recent case law.’’ Ante, at 196,
. The majority mischaracterizes several aspects of Brashear’s testimony. Although Brashear testified that the family “didn’t have lots of money,’’ she followed up that comment by stating that Pinholster did not bring friends to the house because “it was too nice a house.’’ 52 Tr. 7404. The prosecutor did not understand Brashear to have testified that Pinholster’s childhood was deprived. See 53 id., at 7442 (“You heard that he was not a deprived child’’). Nor did the California Supreme Court on direct appeal. People v. Pinholster,
Brashear did testify that Pinholster’s stepfather tried to “discipline’’ him and that he was “at times’’ “abusive or near abusive.’’ 52 Tr. 7392-7393. She suggested, however, that Pinholster
. Terry Williams held that the state court’s decision was “unreasonable in at least two respects’’: (1) It applied the wrong legal standard, see
. Before the hearing, Dr. Stalberg had opined that Pinholster was “substantially impaired by a bipolar mood disorder operating synergistically with intoxication and a seizure disorder at the time the crime was committed.’’ Record ER-587. At a prehearing deposition, however, Dr. Stalberg revised his opinion and stated that he continued to believe that Pinholster suffered from
. The State argues that the District Court was not entitled to rely on the evidence adduced at the hearing because Pinholster was not diligent in developing his claims in state court and the hearing was therefore barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). This argument is somewhat imprecise. Pinholster’s allegations in his amended federal petition were “identical” to the allegations he presented to the California Supreme Court, ante, at 179,
In any event, Pinholster satisfied § 2254(e)(2) in this case. He made “a reasonable attempt, in light of the information available at the time, to investigate and pursue claims in state court.” Michael Williams,
. The State’s challenge in this Court is limited to the questions whether the Federal District Court was entitled to consider the additional evidence in the § 2254(d)(1) analysis and whether Pinholster satisfied § 2254(d)(1) on the basis of the state-court record. It has not challenged the District Court’s ultimate conclusion that Pinholster had proved that he was “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’’ § 2254(a).