Cullen v. Pinholster

Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Federal Courts

563 U.S. 170 (2011)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal CourtsAEDPAstate court recordhabeas corpus28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)state-court recordevidentiary hearingStrickland

Facts

Pinholster was convicted of two first-degree murders and sentenced to death. In state habeas proceedings, he claimed his trial counsel was ineffective at the penalty phase for failing to investigate and present additional mitigating evidence, supporting that claim with records and declarations, including psychiatric materials. After the California Supreme Court denied relief on the merits, Pinholster presented additional expert evidence in federal court at an evidentiary hearing. The Ninth Circuit relied in part on that new federal-court evidence to conclude the state court had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.

Issue

When a state court has adjudicated a claim on the merits, may a federal habeas court consider evidence introduced for the first time in federal court when deciding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) whether the state decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law? If review is limited to the state-court record, did Pinholster show that the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland to his penalty-phase ineffective-assistance claim?

Rule

Review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. When a claim was summarily denied on the merits, the petitioner must show there was no reasonable basis for the state court's decision, and in a Strickland case federal review is doubly deferential because counsel's performance is strongly presumed reasonable and § 2254(d) adds another layer of deference.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Darius Cole was convicted of murder and later filed a state postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance at sentencing. The Ohio Supreme Court denied the claim on the merits. In federal habeas proceedings, Darius obtained a new neuropsychological report for the first time and argued that it showed the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.

When deciding whether 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) is satisfied, what may the federal court consider?

Explanation. Section 2254(d)(1) review is backward-looking and asks whether the state adjudication resulted in an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Under the majority opinion, that inquiry is limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. New evidence first introduced in federal court has no bearing on the § 2254(d)(1) determination.