Newman v. Wengler

If a state prisoner has been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claim in a lower court, then the prisoner’s federal petition for habeas corpus regarding that previous claim may not be granted.

Stephen Newman, in numerous trial court hearings, attempted to suppress evidence seized from his car. However, in 2008, Newman was ultimately convicted by a jury for attempted rape. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed and the Idaho Supreme Court denied review. Subsequently, Newman filed a federal habeas petition alleging that the Stone doctrine was no longer effective because of the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Stone v. Powell. Additionally, Newman argued that the Idaho trial court impinged on his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Stone doctrine provides that “exclusionary rule claims [are] barred if the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate them below.” On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered the validity of the Stone doctrine in their determination as to whether to grant Newman’s habeas petition. The panel determined that the Stone doctrine survived the AEDPA. Therefore, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Newman’s habeas petition, concluding that Newman had already previously been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims. As such, the Stone doctrine bars the court from considering Newman’s habeas corpus claim. AFFIRMED.