This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
According to Kent E. Cattani, petitioner argues that the Ninth Circuit's rejection of a State court factual determination is improper under any deferential standard, especially under the highly deferential standard required by AEDPA.
According to Kent E. Cattani, petitioner asserts that the State court's determination of the facts was unreasonable.
According to Respondent (Mr. CATTANI), according to Respondent (Mr. CATTANI), respondent raises the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
According to Petitioner, petitioner alleges that witnesses can attest to the use of alcohol and drugs by the biological mother when Landrigan was in utero.
Petitioner claims that mental‑health expert testimony, if prepared, could have been critically important to the case.
Justice Stevens asked, “May I ask about the first one? Does the Constitution require there be no involuntary?”
Justice Kennedy asked, “In your view, what is the standard for when the district court may hold an evidentiary hearing?”
Justice Souter asked, “Are you saying the waiver does not need to be a knowing waiver … based upon an appreciation of all the possible mitigation evidence …?”
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy noted that the district court has substantial discretion in determining whether to grant a hearing.
Justice Ginsburg asked, “Could you do it concretely, Mr. Verrilli, for this case. The defendant is being rather obstreperous and says: I don’t want any mitigating evidence; I’m a really bad guy.”
- [1] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 3
- [2] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 12
- [3] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 22
- [4] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 39
- [5] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 45
- [6] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 4
- [7] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 6
- [8] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, pp. 28–29
- [9] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 53
- [10] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 42
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Kent E. Cattani, the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of a State court factual determination is improper under any deferential standard, especially under AEDPA.
According to Kent E. Cattani, the State court’s determination of the facts was unreasonable.
According to Petitioner, mental‑health expert testimony, if prepared, could have been critically important to the case.
According to Mr. Verrilli, refusing an evidentiary hearing would constitute abdication of responsibility, especially when the State court has not afforded such a hearing.
Respondent Position
According to Respondent (Mr. CATTANI), according to Respondent (Mr. CATTANI), the respondent alleges ineffective assistance of counsel.
According to Respondent (Mr. VERRILLI), according to Respondent (Mr. VERRILLI), mr. Verrilli represented the respondent during oral argument.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Stevens asked whether the Constitution requires there be no involuntary.
Justice Kennedy asked what the standard is for when a district court may hold an evidentiary hearing.
According to Justice BREYER, justice Breyer questioned whether a defendant may seek a hearing in State court and then attempt a similar approach in Federal court with additional witnesses.
Justice Souter asked whether a waiver must be a knowing waiver based on appreciation of all possible mitigation evidence.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy noted that the district court has substantial discretion in deciding whether to grant a hearing.
Justice Ginsburg asked for a concrete illustration of the defendant’s refusal to consider mitigating evidence.
According to Kent E. Cattani, petitioner argued that the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of the State court’s factual findings was improper.
According to Kent E. Cattani, petitioner contended that the State court’s factual determination was unreasonable.
According to Petitioner, petitioner presented evidence of witnesses attesting to prenatal alcohol and drug exposure.
Petitioner argued that mental‑health expert testimony could have been decisive if prepared.
According to Respondent (Mr. CATTANI), according to Respondent (Mr. CATTANI), respondent asserted ineffective assistance of counsel.
- [1] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 4
- [2] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 6
- [3] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 21
- [4] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, pp. 28–29
- [5] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 53
- [6] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 42
- [7] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 3
- [8] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 12
- [9] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 39
- [10] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 45
- [11] eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdf, p. 22
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- eae30f407b6047b527e7-r1-b9a45b3f342a51b4.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.