Citation network
Cullen Vs. Pinholster
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 04, 2011
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2010 Cullen V. PinholsterSearch
-
claims first to state courts. Robinson v. ShellSearch
-
d)(1) review focuses on what a state court knew and did. See, e.g., Lockyer v. AndradeSearch
-
Moreover, it is consistent with Schriro v. LandriganSearch
-
s limitations. The Ninth Circuit wrongly interpreted Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 420 , and Holland v. JacksonSearch
-
b) Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
Because this Court did not apply AEDPA deference to the question of prejudice in Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
U. S. 362 , and Rompilla v. BeardSearch
-
part. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Kagan, JJ., joined as to Part II. Cullen v. PinholsterSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Cullen V. PinholsterSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-1088 Vincent Cullen, Acting Warden, Petitioner V. ScottSearch
-
at the penalty phase of trial. Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Pinholster v. AyersSearch
-
on each of the two murder counts. On mandatory appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. People v. PinholsterSearch
-
App. to Pet. for Cert. 262. After Woodford v. GarceauSearch
-
not alter its conclusion. Over a dissent, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Pinholster v. AyersSearch
-
evidence into account, the en banc court determined that the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
claims first to the state courts. Robinson v. ShellSearch
-
that were before the state court. Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
Our recent decision in Schriro v. LandriganSearch
-
internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court of Appeals wrongly interpreted Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
reliance on Holland v. JacksonSearch
-
meet that high threshold. B There is no dispute that the clearly established federal law here is Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
slip op., at 11) (citing Yarborough v. GentrySearch
-
ibid. (quoting Wiggins v. SmithSearch
-
slip op., at 15) (quoting Padilla v. KentuckySearch
-
with his psychiatric report, Pinholster would have opened the door to rebuttal by a state expert. See, e.g., Wong v. BelmontesSearch
-
clearly mitigating, as the jury might have concluded that Pinholster was simply beyond rehabilitation. Cf. Atkins v. VirginiaSearch
-
from Terry Williams and Rompilla v. BeardSearch
-
d), from receiving an evidentiary hearing. Footnote 6 In Bradshaw v. RicheySearch
-
assumes the allegations in the petition to be true, but does not accept wholly conclusory allegations, People v. DuvallSearch
-
Terry Williams , 529 U. S. 362 , 391 (2000) (quoting Wright v. WestSearch
-
d) has been satisfied. Cullen v. PinholsterSearch
-
Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
e)(2)(B). Even when the petitioner does satisfy the diligence standard adopted in Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
a hearing in certain situations, but it does not mean that a hearing is allowed in all other situations. See Schriro v. LandriganSearch
-
en banc decision, see Pinholster v. AyersSearch
-
reasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent in light of the state-court record. Cullen v. PinholsterSearch
-
Sotomayor, J., Dissenting Cullen V. PinholsterSearch
-
Robinson v. ShellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial