Lexplug logoLexplug

Woodford v. Visciotti

Supreme Court of United States
537 U.S. 19 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus based on a state court's application of federal law unless the state court's decision was objectively unreasonable, not merely incorrect.


Facts:

  • John Visciotti and his co-worker, Brian Hefner, devised a plan to rob two other fellow employees, Timothy Dykstra and Michael Wolbert, on their payday, November 8, 1982.
  • Visciotti and Hefner invited Dykstra and Wolbert to a non-existent party to get them into a car.
  • During the drive, Visciotti asked Wolbert, who was driving, to pull over in a remote area under the pretense of needing to relieve himself.
  • After all four men exited the vehicle, Visciotti drew a gun, demanded their wallets, and learned where cash was hidden in the car.
  • After Hefner retrieved the money, Visciotti shot and killed the seated Dykstra from close range.
  • Visciotti then shot Wolbert three times, with the final shot being to Wolbert's eye from about two feet away.
  • Visciotti and Hefner fled the scene in Wolbert's car.
  • Wolbert survived the shooting and later testified against Visciotti.

Procedural Posture:

  • John Visciotti was convicted by a jury in a California state court of first-degree murder with special circumstances, attempted murder, and armed robbery, and was sentenced to death.
  • The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
  • Visciotti then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • The California Supreme Court, after an evidentiary hearing, denied the petition, concluding that Visciotti had not been prejudiced by his counsel's assumed deficient performance.
  • Visciotti filed a federal habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
  • The District Court granted the petition as to the death sentence, finding that Visciotti had received ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • The State of California, as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to grant habeas relief to Visciotti, the appellee.
  • The State of California petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), was the California Supreme Court's decision—denying relief for ineffective assistance of counsel by assuming counsel's performance was deficient but finding no prejudice—either 'contrary to' or an 'unreasonable application of' the standard established in Strickland v. Washington?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. The California Supreme Court’s decision was neither 'contrary to' nor an 'unreasonable application of' clearly established federal law. A state court decision is not 'contrary to' Supreme Court precedent merely because it uses occasional shorthand, such as 'probable' instead of 'reasonably probable,' when the opinion as a whole correctly identifies and applies the proper legal standard from Strickland v. Washington. Furthermore, the state court’s decision was not an 'unreasonable application' of Strickland because its conclusion that Visciotti was not prejudiced was not objectively unreasonable. The state court properly weighed the mitigating evidence against the overwhelming aggravating factors—the execution-style murder during a robbery and prior violent crimes—and a federal court cannot grant habeas relief simply because it would have weighed the evidence differently.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the highly deferential standard of review federal courts must apply to state court decisions under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). It sharply distinguishes between an 'incorrect' application of federal law and an 'objectively unreasonable' one, significantly raising the bar for habeas petitioners. The ruling instructs federal courts to give state court decisions the 'benefit of the doubt' and to avoid overturning them based on hyper-technical readings or by substituting their own judgment on matters like the prejudicial effect of counsel's errors. This strengthens the finality of state court convictions and limits federal judicial intervention in state criminal proceedings.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Woodford v. Visciotti (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"