Kelly Harrington, Warden, Petitioner, v. Joshua Richter (562 U.S. 86)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 19, 2011 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 562 U.S. 86 · 131 S. Ct. 770
- Decided
- January 19, 2011
- Term
- October Term 2010
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. The writ of habeas corpus stands as a safeguard against imprisonment of those held in violation of the law. Judges must be vigilant and independent in reviewing petitions for the writ, a commitment that entails substantial judicial resources. Those resources are diminished and misspent, however, and confidence in the writ and the law it vindicates undermined, if there is judicial disregard for the sound and established principles that inform its proper issuance. That judicial disregard is inherent in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit here under review. The Court of Appeals, in disagreement with the contrary conclusions of the Supreme Court of the State of California and of a United States District Court, ordered habeas corpus relief granted to set aside the conviction of Joshua Richter, respondent here. This was clear error. Under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d), the availability of federal ha-beas relief is limited with respect to claims previously “adjudicated on the merits” in state-court proceedings. The first inquiry this case presents is whether that provision applies when state-court relief is denied without an accompanying statement of reasons. If it does, the question is whether the Court of Appeals adhered to the statute’s terms, in this ease as it relates to ineffective-assistance claims judged by…
Excerpt of a 43,058-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.