Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez

"[U]nder [28 U.S.C.] §2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel."

Respondents were convicted in state court for separate capital crimes and subsequently sentenced to death. Following unsuccessful state habeas petitions, each respondent filed a habeas corpus petition with the district court, but their ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims were procedurally defaulted as they were not raised in a timely fashion in state court petitions, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents’ defaults were forgiven on cause and prejudice hearings for ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel by failing to raise the initial claim and develop the evidentiary record. Petitioners argued that § 2254(e)(2) prevented additional evidentiary hearings and the district court to consider evidence not already on the record. The Ninth Circuit remanded, ordering further evidentiary hearings to supplement the record and litigate the merits of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that "under [28 U.S.C.] §2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel." § 2254(e)(2)’s text clearly sets narrow limits where evidentiary hearings on the procedurally defaulted claim may be held, and the court may not rewrite the text of the statute. As habeas relief is an extreme remedy and an upset to dual sovereignty, under the court’s precedents, restrictions on relief based on new evidence from § 2254(e)(2) apply even stronger when the evidence comes without an evidentiary hearing. Reversed.