Shinn v. Ramirez | |
---|---|
Argued December 8, 2021 Decided May 23, 2022 | |
Full case name | David Shinn, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, et al. v. David Martinez Ramirez and Barry Lee Jones |
Docket no. | 20-1009 |
Citations | 596 U.S. 366 (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Holding | |
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), 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. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Breyer, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 |
Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.