October Term 2011 · Docket 10-1001
Does Arizona's rule bar federal review of ineffective assistance claims?
Arizona requires defendants to raise ineffective assistance claims in state postconviction proceedings. the side that brought the case argues this rule blocks federal habeas review.
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 side that brought the case's counsel argued Arizona requires ineffective assistance claims in postconviction proceedings.
the opposing side's counsel argued the state rule is a valid procedural default.
Justice Ginsburg questioned the rationale for the state rule.
Justice Alito asked about the right to counsel for late-arising claims.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- 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 25-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a state procedural rule bars federal courts from reviewing ineffective assistance claims. the side that brought the case seeks federal review. the opposing side seeks to uphold the state rule.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 11-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 4, 2011.
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 side that brought the case wants federal courts to review the ineffective assistance claim despite the state procedural default.
the opposing side wants the state procedural rule to bar federal review of the claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 11-21
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the state rule creates an independent barrier to federal review of constitutional claims.
the opposing side argues the state rule is a valid procedural default that bars federal review.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 11-21
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked why the state rule should bar federal review.
Justice Alito asked if a right to counsel exists when a claim could not be raised earlier.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-15
Why it matters
The outcome determines whether federal courts can review ineffective assistance claims barred by state procedural rules. This affects the scope of federal habeas review for criminal defendants.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 11-21
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 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-15
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 26, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-27 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-21 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 11-21
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.