parent nodes: collateral attack on state conviction | federal habeas corpus | last-in-time rule | procedural default

habeas evidentiary hearing

federal habeas corpus

State court factfinding

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
. . .
(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.
28 USC § 2254(d)*


(e)
(1) In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.
(2) 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.
28 USC § 2254(e)

§ 2254(e)(2) does not bar granting the writ, but only the ability to hold an evidentiary hearing.

Compare procedural default, which applies to legal arguments. Note that § 2254(e)(2) does not bar relief, unlike the procedural default doctrine. There may be a case where a petitioner had defaulted his claims in state court, but had nonetheless managed to develop a factual basis, see, e.g., [Coleman v Thompson]; in such a case, § 2254(e) would not apply (although procedural default would still apply, blocking the claim entirely).

"Fail()" implies a negligence standard, and thus applies only if a prisoner has through his own fault neglected to develop a factual record in the state court. [Michael Williams v Taylor]. Note that § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii) applies to "cases in which the facts could not have been discovered, whether there was diligence or not." [Michael Williams v Taylor]. The Court gave § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii) the construction in order to avoid § 2254(e)(2)(B), which would require that undiscoverable information or the new rule would support a case of actual innocence. One possible rationale for this strained construction is to provide an escape hatch for prisoners who try to develop evidence in state court, but are prevented by the state courts.


§ 2254(d) and § 2254(e)

Wiggins: if the state court is wrong by "clear and convincing evidence," then it's also "unreasonable" under § 2254(e)(1)


Claim is: Adjudicated on merits in state court Not adjudicated
Petitioner is:

Diligent No relief (and thus no hearing) unless Hearing Not diligent (New rule OR undiscoverable evidence) <---Same [Michael Williams v Taylor]