Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Per curiam opinion lets defendant press AEDPA claim that prejudicial evidence was 'clearly established' law
Summary
In a 7–2 per curiam ruling discussed on the Term Talk podcast, the Supreme Court held that the rule from Payne v. Tennessee can be treated as a "clearly established" rule for AEDPA review, remanding Andrew v. White for further consideration of prejudicial‑evidence due‑process claims.
The panel on the Federal Judicial Center’s Term Talk podcast reviewed Andrew v. White, a per curiam Supreme Court decision (7–2, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissenting) that clarified when a decision can provide a "clearly established" rule for review under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) (AEDPA).
Panelists recounted the case facts: Brenda Andrew was convicted and sentenced to death for her husband’s murder; the state admitted evidence about her sexual history that it called irrelevant, and the Tenth Circuit denied habeas relief under AEDPA because it deemed the…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
