Harrington v. Richter
Holding
The defense lawyer was not deficient in failing to consult blood evidence when planning strategy for trial. (Kagan, J., recused).
Plain English Holding
Because the high standard for federal habeas relief established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act applies even when a state court does not issue an opinion explaining the basis of its decision, the petitioner's defense lawyer was not unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to consult blood evidence when planning strategy for his trial.
Judgment
Reversed, 8-0, in an opinion by Anthony McLeod Kennedy on Jan 19, 2011. (Kagan, J., recused).
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Kelly Harrington
- Brief for Respondent Joshua Richter
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Kelly Harrington
Amicus Briefs
- Brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Respondent
- Brief for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Law Professors and Legal Scholars in Support of Respondent
[##CERT-STAGE##]
Recommended Citation: Harrington v. Richter, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/harrington-v-richter/