Supreme Court Cases

Front 1

Baldwin v. Reese

Back 1

A state prisoner ordinarily does not "fairly present" a federal claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition, a brief, or similar papers to find material that will alert it to the presence of such a claim.

Front 2

Baldwin v. Reese (2)

Back 2

To say that a petitioner "fairly presents" a federal claim when an appellate judge can discover that claim only by reading the lower court opinions is to say that those judges must read those opinions--for otherwise they would forfeit the State's opportunity to decide the claim in the first instance. Federal habeas law does not impose such a requirement. That requirement would force state appellate judges to alter their ordinary review practices, since they do not necessarily read lower court opinions in every case. And it would impose a serious burden upon those judges with discretionary review powers, whose heavy workloads would be significantly increased if they had to read through lower court opinions or briefs in every instance. Finally, the requirement is unnecessary to avoid imposing unreasonable procedural burdens upon state prisoners who may eventually seek federal habeas. A litigant can easily indicate his claim's federal law basis in a petition or brief, for example, by citing to the federal source of law on which he relies or simply labeling the claim "federal."

Front 3

Baldwin v. Reese (3)

Back 3

This Court is not wrong to assume that Reese's petition by itself failed to alert the State Supreme Court to his claim's federal nature. He must concede that his petition does not explicitly say that "ineffective assistance of appellate counsel" refers to a federal claim, cite any case that might have alerted the court to his claim's alleged federal nature, or even contain a factual description supporting his claim. Reese asserts that the petition nonetheless "fairly presents" a federal "ineffective assistance" claim because (1) "ineffective" is a term of art in Oregon that refers only to federal law claims, and (2) the state law standards for adjudicating state and federal "inadequate/ineffective appellate assistance" claims are identical. This Court rejects his first argument because he has not demonstrated that state law uses "ineffective assistance" as referring only to a federal law, rather than a similar state law, claim. However, Reese's second argument was not addressed by, or presented to, the Ninth Circuit, and first appeared here in Reese's merits brief. Because the issue is complex and lower court consideration would help in its resolution, the Court, without expressing any view on the issue's merits, exercises its Rule 15.2 discretion and deems the argument waived.

Front 4

BANKS v. DRETKE

Back 4

When police or prosecutors conceal significant exculpatory or impeaching material in the State's possession, it is ordinarily incumbent on the State to set the record straight.

Front 5

BANKS v. DRETKE

Back 5

A Brady prosecutorial misconduct claim has three essential elements.
1 evidence at issue is favorable to accused as exculpatory or impeaching.
2. State suppressed evidence at issue
--shown cause when the reason for the failure to develop facts in state-court proceedings was the State's suppression of the relevant evidence
3. that prejudice ensued -"material" for Brady purposes.

Front 6

BANKS v. DRETKE (3)

Back 6

three inquiries underlie the "cause" determination: (1) whether the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence; (2) whether the petitioner reasonably relied on the prosecution's open file policy as fulfilling the prosecution's duty to disclose such evidence; and (3) whether the State confirmed the petitioner's reliance on that policy by asserting during the state habeas proceedings that the petitioner had already received everything known to the government.

Front 7

BANKS v. DRETKE (4)

Back 7

materiality standard for Brady claims is met when "the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict."

Front 8

BANKS v. DRETKE

Back 8

Rule 15(b) allows the claim to be treated as having been raised in the pleadings including in habeas proceedings and even if the claim is in an evidentiary hearing.