Pitchford v. Cain · ¶26
To be sure, the AEDPA standard for reviewing claims on federal habeas is deferential to the state court. See Wil liams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 412–413 (2000); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 102–103 (2011); Brown v. Davenport, 596 U. S. 118, 135 (2022); Klein v. Martin, 607 U. S. 213, 220– 221 (2026) (per curiam). But deference does not mean abdication, and “deference does not by definition preclude relief.” Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U. S. 231, 240 (2005) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). In light of the entire record in this case, we agree with the U. S. District Court that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied the clearly established Batson precedents and unreasonably determined that Pitchford waived his opportunity to rebut the prose- cutor's asserted race-neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes of four black prospective jurors. 28 U. S. C. §§…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.