Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit held that a California Supreme Court opinion had “unreasonably applied clearly established federal law” in denying habeas corpus relief to a condemned prisoner. Today, however, the federal court finds that, in summarily denying another death row inmate’s habeas petition, the Supreme Court “could have reasonably concluded” the petition lacked merit. As in yesterday’s case, the Ninth Circuit today addresses — in Livaditis v. Davis — claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Supreme Court can take only limited solace from the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. In refusing to grant habeas relief, the appeals court stresses the deference it must pay to the Supreme Court’s decision and the “high bar” the petitioner had to clear, and it states that, “[u]nder de novo review, we might reach a different conclusion.”
Related:
