Link to today’s Supreme Court order list (which is unremarkable, other than the Thomas’ dissent).
Thomas’ dissent begins at page 6 of the pdf and continues 14 pages to the end of the document.
I agree 100% with Thomas here. The Sixth Circuit panel’s granting of habeas relief was unwarranted and in of AEDPA. The Sixth Circuit’s failure to reverse the panel ruling en banc is a further failure. The Supreme Court should have issued a GVR (Grant, Vacate, Remand) order in this case, summarily overturning the Sixth Circuit and denying habeas relief.
Under AEDPA, habeas relief can only be granted IF one of the two following conditions are met:
“(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.”
If those conditions are not met, Federal Courts are REQUIRED to defer to State Court decisions.
Unfortunately, Federal Courts continue to flout AEDPA.
I agree with Thomas. The Supreme Court must use GVR EVERY TIME to reverse these faulty grants of habeas relief when they arise.
It was Congress intent to curtail frivolous habeas appeals and the Federal Courts need to adhere to that intent.
“Thomas decried the 6th Circuit’s decision as “more than an error – it is an injustice” that “shows profound disrespect, not merely to the state” but also to members of the jury as well as the victims and their families. He argued that his colleagues had “shirk[ed] our responsibility to correct classic” abuses of federal habeas law – the body of law that allows inmates to challenge their convictions based on new evidence or constitutional violations.”
he is more worried about victims and their families than the constitutional rights of inmates.
where did i say that. you can strike a balance between victims and the constitutional rights of inmates.
even the convicted here in the great united states have the right to appeal their sentence. Habeas is written into our constitution dissents notwithstanding,
NONE of which invalidates Thomas’ main point. That the Sixth Circuit defied AEDPA.
CONGRESS, by statute, set the limits by which Federal Courts may permissible intervene in the habeas process.
The State Courts handled it properly and found no valid merit in the defendant’s habeas claims. In doing so, neither prong I mentioned above was violated, so the Federal Courts had no legitimate power under AEDPA to grant habeas relief.
Thomas was correct and the court was wrong for failing to issue a GVR.
The defendant got FULL justice in the courts of Ohio.
The 6th Circuit ruled that the federal trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to address Cunningham’s juror-bias claims. That prompted the state to come to the Supreme Court, which on Monday left the court of appeals’ ruling in place.
IMO…and if I’m understanding correctly Justice Thomas’s too…the fact that in the 6th’s opinion there should have been an “evidentiary hearing to address Cunningham’s juror-claim bias” should not override the fact he was found guilty by the state. It’s an insult to both the state and all of those harmed by this turd.
The defendant got “consideration” of his claims of juror bias. The trial court and appellate court both found no merit to the claims on the face and thus denied granting an evidentiary hearing.
I believe that to be the correct decision.
The factual basis of the defendant’s claims are very thin. And even if the relationship existed prior to the trial, it would likely be considered a “harmless” error. The guilt of the defendant was 100% beyond doubt and the execution style killing of the victims would have almost certainly have garnered the death penalty. Thus the juror bias, on the slim chance it existed at all, would have made no difference.
Then we reach AEDPA. AEDPA prescribes very strict conditions on which a Federal Court may grant habeas relief. I will restate the conditions from the OP.
“(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.”
Condition #1 was not met, as the Circuit Court relied on its OWN precedent and the Supreme Court has stated numerous times that Federal Courts may only rely on Supreme Court precedents when granting habeas relief. Condition #2 was not met, as clearly the decision of the State Courts were reasonable based on the facts of the case.
Therefore, the Federal Courts should not have granted relief.
I am a strong believe in due process. At the same time, I fully understand that defendants, particularly capital defendants, will throw balls of ■■■■ at the wall, hoping and praying that one of them sticks. That is what is going on in this case. A capital defendant grasping at straws to try to overturn his sentence.
Thanks for the response. I of course am inclined to always weight the interests of the defendant over those of the state, but your explanation is helpful, for I am not a lawyer.
