Klein v. Martin · ¶35
The panel majority nonetheless held that the state appellate court applied the wrong rule because that court failed to discuss certain evidence that tended to undermine the State's case and because its analysis was not sufficiently “nuanced.” App. 24a–26a. That holding was a basic misapplication of AEDPA, which bars federal courts from imposing opinion-writing standards on state courts and demands that the relevant state-court decision be given the “benefit of the doubt.” Woodford, 537 U. S., at 24. The majority's “readiness to attribute error” to the state appellate court despite that court's correct citation and synthesis of our precedent was both “inconsistent with the presumption that state courts know and follow the law” and “incompatible with § 2254(d)'s `highly deferential standard for evaluating state- court rulings.' ” Ibid. (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, 333, n. 7…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.