holding that the condition precedent for AEDPA deferential review is that the claim must have been adjudicated 3 Shelton's application for post-conviction relief is not contained in the Appendix. However, the government does not contend that this ground is procedurally defaulted, and both the magistrate judge and the district court refer to this claim being included, but ignored by the post-conviction court. -7- on the merits in state court
How later courts described this case
- holding that the condition precedent for AEDPA deferential review is that the claim must have been adjudicated 3 Shelton's application for post-conviction relief is not contained in the Appendix. However, the government does not contend that this ground is procedurally defaulted, and both the magistrate judge and the district court refer to this claim being included, but ignored by the post-conviction court. -7- on the merits in state court
- holding that AEDPA deference applied to a state court’s alternative holding where it assumed a trial error and applied harmless error review under Chapman
- explaining that to qualify as an adjudication on the merits, the “state court’s decision must be a judgment—an adjudication—on a substantive issue— the merits (as compared with a procedural or technical point)”
- holding state court adjudicated due process claim on the merits when it cited to relevant federal law and invoked the governing standard, even though state court’s brief discussion of claim was devoted to the state law evidentiary question
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge,
with whom MURPHY, Circuit Judge, joins,
concurring in the judgment.
. I agree with the court that because Brown’s constitutional claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court, AEDPA’s § 2254(d) standard of review should apply. I also agree that any error in excluding the Turner letter was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
For the reasons so persuasively advanced in Judge Richard Arnold’s dissent, however, I cannot agree that the letter was properly excluded on either relevancy or reliability grounds. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment affirming the denial of the writ.