Greene v. Fisher

Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusAEDPAAEDPA2254(d)(1)clearly established Federal lawstate-court adjudication on the meritshabeas

Facts

Greene was tried jointly with codefendants for a grocery store robbery during which the store owner was killed. Two nontestifying codefendants had confessed, and the trial court admitted redacted versions of those confessions replacing names with terms like "this guy," "someone," "other guys," "blank," or omissions; Greene argued severance was required under Bruton. The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected his Confrontation Clause claim on the merits, holding the redactions cured any Bruton problem. While Greene's petition for allowance of appeal was pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Gray v. Maryland, but the state supreme court later dismissed his appeal as improvidently granted.

Issue

For purposes of AEDPA, does "clearly established Federal law" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) include Supreme Court decisions announced after the last state-court adjudication on the merits but before the defendant's conviction becomes final? Alternatively, can the relevant state-court "decision" be a later state supreme court disposition that did not adjudicate the claim on the merits?

Rule

Section 2254(d)(1) measures a state court's merits adjudication against Supreme Court precedent that existed at the time that state court rendered its decision. A later state-court action that does not adjudicate the claim on the merits is not the relevant "decision" for § 2254(d)(1), and AEDPA's inquiry is distinct from Teague's retroactivity inquiry.

🔒

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, Malik Turner was convicted of assault. The Ohio Court of Appeals rejected his Sixth Amendment claim on the merits in February, and four months later the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new decision that strongly favored Malik's position; the Ohio Supreme Court then denied discretionary review without explanation.

On Malik's federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), which body of Supreme Court precedent governs review of the state court's merits decision?

Explanation. Section 2254(d)(1) is backward-looking. The relevant benchmark is the Supreme Court's clearly established law at the time of the last state-court adjudication on the merits of the claim. A later denial of discretionary review is not the relevant decision, and later Supreme Court cases issued before finality still do not count for this AEDPA inquiry.