Harrington v. Richter
562 U. S. ____ (2011) (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a state court's summary denial of a claim is presumed to be an adjudication on the merits and is entitled to deference. For an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to succeed in federal habeas review, the petitioner must show the state court's decision was not merely incorrect, but so unreasonable that no fairminded jurist could agree with it.
Facts:
- Sometime after midnight on December 20, 1994, Joshua Johnson awoke at his home to find Joshua Richter and Christian Branscombe in his bedroom.
- Branscombe shot Johnson, who survived. Johnson then heard more gunfire in the living room.
- After the assailants left, Johnson found his friend Patrick Klein unconscious and bleeding on the living room couch; Klein later died from two gunshot wounds.
- A gun safe, a pistol, and $6,000 in cash were missing from Johnson's bedroom.
- Investigators found shell casings from two different caliber weapons in the bedroom and living room.
- A search of Richter's residence uncovered Johnson's stolen gun safe and ammunition matching one of the bullets that killed Klein.
- Richter initially denied involvement but later admitted to taking Johnson's pistol and disposing of the two guns used in the shootings.
Procedural Posture:
- Richter was convicted of murder and other charges in a California state trial court.
- A California intermediate appellate court affirmed Richter's conviction.
- The California Supreme Court denied Richter's petition for direct review.
- Richter filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which the court denied in a one-sentence summary order.
- Richter then filed a federal habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, which denied the petition.
- A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial.
- The Ninth Circuit, after granting a rehearing en banc, reversed the district court and ordered habeas relief be granted.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was it an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law for a state court to summarily deny an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where trial counsel chose not to consult forensic blood experts as part of a trial strategy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. The state court's denial of Richter's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not an unreasonable application of the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington. First, the deferential standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) applies even when a state court denies a claim in a summary order without providing reasons; it is presumed to be a decision on the merits. A federal habeas court must then determine what arguments could have supported the state court's decision and ask whether any fairminded jurist could agree with it. Second, the standards of both Strickland and § 2254(d) are highly deferential, making the review "doubly" so. Counsel’s decision not to consult blood experts was a reasonable strategic choice to avoid the risk of uncovering evidence that would contradict Richter's account and to instead focus on creating overall doubt in the prosecution's case. Given the substantial circumstantial evidence of guilt, it was also reasonable for the state court to conclude that any alleged error was not prejudicial.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
Concurring in the judgment. Although counsel's failure to consult blood experts constituted deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment, this lapse was not prejudicial. The prosecution's case against Richter was very strong and was not significantly weakened by the expert affidavits Richter later presented. Therefore, counsel's error was not so serious as to deprive Richter of a fair trial whose result is reliable, and for that reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly heightened the barrier for state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims. By establishing the "doubly deferential" standard of review, the Court made it extremely difficult to prove that a state court's rejection of an IAC claim was unreasonable. It also clarified that summary state court denials receive the same AEDPA deference as fully reasoned opinions, preventing federal courts from conducting de novo review in such cases. The ruling reinforces principles of finality and federalism, solidifying the state courts as the primary forum for adjudicating constitutional claims arising from state convictions.
