Supreme Court makes it harder for state prisoners to pursue ineffective assistance of counsel claims in federal court

From [HERE] The US Supreme Court Monday ruled 6-3 in Shinn v. Ramirez that “a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.”

In Shinn, two prisoners filed for federal habeas relief under 28 USC §2254. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial. However, no constitutional right to counsel exists regarding state post-conviction proceedings. The prisoners argued trial counsel was ineffective due to failure to conduct adequate investigations. The federal district court held in each prisoner’s case that their ineffective-assistance claim was presented improperly in state court and thus was procedurally defaulted.

In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court found that in order to overcome procedural default in cases such as the prisoners’, “a prisoner must demonstrate ’cause’ to excuse the procedural defect and ‘actual prejudice.'” Additionally, Thomas wrote “[p]ermitting federal fact-finding would encourage yet more federal litigation of defaulted claims.”

In Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, she wrote that the court’s ruling “hamstrings the federal courts’ authority to safeguard that [effective assistance of counsel] right.” Further, she stated that the court’s holding is compelled by statute. However, [m]ake no mistake. Neither [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] nor this Court’s precedents require this result.”