| Cullen v. Pinholster | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 9, 2010 Decided April 4, 2011 | |
| Full case name | Vincent Cullen, Acting Warden v. Scott Lynn Pinholster |
| Docket no. | 09-1088 |
| Citations | 563 U.S. 170 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Pinholster v. Ayers, 590 F. 3d 651 (9th Cir. 2009) |
| Holding | |
| 1. Review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.
2. On the record before the state court, Pinholster was not entitled to federal habeas relief. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy; Alito (all but part II); Breyer (parts I and II); Ginsburg, Kagan (part II) |
| Concurrence | Alito (in part and in judgment) |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Kagan (part II) |
| Laws applied | |
| Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act | |
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, is a 2011 United States Supreme Court case concerning evidentiary development in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Oral arguments in the case took place on November 9, 2010, and the Supreme Court issued its decision on April 4, 2011. The Supreme Court held 5–4 that only evidence originally presented before the state court in which the claim was originally adjudicated on the merits could be presented when raising a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and that evidence from a federal habeas court could not be presented in such proceedings. It also held that the convicted murderer Scott Pinholster, the respondent in the case, was not entitled to the habeas relief he had been granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.