The capital habeas case of Wood v. Allen will be argued next Wednesday, Nov. 4, before the Supreme Court.
SCOTUSblog has its preview up today.
According to the preview, the issue is "how a federal court should review the facts determined in a state criminal proceeding under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)."
To cut to the chase, the AEDPA has two different subsections that discuss the level of deference that should be given to state court factual findings: 2254(d)(2) and 2254(e)(1). Here is how the preview describes it:
Section 2254 contains two subsections that relate to state court factual findings: subsection (d)(2), which precludes relief unless the state court proceeding “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding”; and subsection (e)(1), which creates a presumption that “a determination of a factual issue made by a state court” is correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
The question is which section applies when. Both sides acknowledge a split between the circuits on when to apply the two. Some say that both apply to every petition; others hold that "subsection (d)(2)’s 'reasonableness determination' applies to challenges . . . based solely on evidence within the state record, while the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard applies when a challenge relies on extrinsic evidence."
It is not clear whether the Supreme Court will answer that question here as petitioner has argued that, even if the state court's factual findings are accepted, it was still an unreasonable application of clearly established law. It wasn't the issue on which cert. was granted, but I guess it could go that way.
At bottom, it does appear to be a case that is worth watching for New York habeas petitioners.
Comments