October Term 2008 · Docket 07-1223
Can federal courts review new evidence in capital cases if state courts already decided the claim?
the sides that brought the case argue federal courts must review new evidence in capital cases. the opposing sides argue state courts already decided the claim.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the sides that brought the case argue federal courts must review new evidence in capital cases.
the opposing sides argue state courts already decided the claim on the merits.
questions
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-5 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-5
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests how federal courts handle new evidence in capital cases. the sides that brought the case want federal review of new evidence. the opposing sides want state court decisions to stand.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 12, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want federal courts to review new evidence in capital cases.
the opposing sides want state court decisions to stand without federal review.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue federal courts must review new evidence in capital cases.
the opposing sides argue state courts already decided the claim on the merits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked why federal courts must review claims state courts already decided.
Justice Ginsburg asked how diligence applies when counsel was ineffective.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-5 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-5
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal review in capital cases. It determines whether federal courts can revisit state court decisions. It affects the rights of death row inmates nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-5 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-5
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.