holding a state prisoner must “do more than point to the state court’s silence to defeat Richter’s strong presumption that the state court adjudicated his claim” on the merits
How later courts described this case
- holding a state prisoner must “do more than point to the state court’s silence to defeat Richter’s strong presumption that the state court adjudicated his claim” on the merits
- “That the state court here did not identify the relevant federal standard by name . . . does not, by itself, speak to the decision’s conformity with clearly established federal law for the purposes of § 2254(d)(1).”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit . Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
Habeas courts may not grant relief unless “there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with [Supreme Court] precedents.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Although fair-minded jurists could possibly characterize the prosecutor’s statements as reasonable inferences that the various bullet components matched up, equally fair-minded jurists could more logically characterize the prosecutor’s statements as misstatements of the evidence, which was inconclusive on this point. Under these circumstances, applying Richter and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), I concur in the judgment affirming the denial of habeas relief.