# Harrington v. Richter > Supreme Court of the United States · January 19, 2011 · 562 U.S. 86 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438939 ## Case - **Full name:** Harrington, Warden v. Richter - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** January 19, 2011 - **Citations:** 562 U.S. 86; 131 S. Ct. 770; 178 L. Ed. 2d 624; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 912 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ginsburg - **Judges:** Kennedy, Ginsburg, Kagan - **Cited by:** 12,972 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Limited by Jeffery Lee v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, 726 F.3d 1172 (2013). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 2 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438939 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining that the deferential standard of § 2254(d) still applies even if the state court did not issue an opinion or explain its reasoning for denying habeas relief and that "[w]hen a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief [w… - holding that “petitioner’s burden still must be met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief,” and reviewing court “must determine what arguments or theories supported or ... could have supported[] the state court’s decision[,] and then it mu… - holding that the state habeas court’s determination that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate and present expert testimony on certain blood evidence because it was “well within the bounds of a reasonable judicial determination for the state court to con… - holding that the AED-PA requires federal habeas courts to review state court decisions with “deference and latitude,” and “[a] state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness… - holding that the AEDPA requires a federal habeas court to review state court decisions with “deference and latitude,” and “[a] state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness… ## Opinion text Justice Ginsburg, concurring in the judgment. In failing even to consult blood experts in preparation for the murder trial, Richter’s counsel, I agree with the Court of Appeals, “was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (1984). The strong force of the prosecution’s case, however, was not significantly reduced by the affidavits offered in support of Richter’s habeas *114 petition. I would therefore not rank counsel’s lapse “so serious as to deprive [Richter] of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Ibid. For that reason, I concur in the Court’s judgment. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438939. Public record. Not legal advice.