In May of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Arizona’s petition for certiorari in Shinn v. Ramirez and its companion case Shinn v. Jones. To understand the significance of the grant requires a journey through the procedural thicket that is modern day federal habeas jurisprudence. Arizona describes the issue this way: Does the general prohibition on a federal habeas court’s considering evidence outside the state court record “apply when a court reviews the merits of an ineffective-assistance claim that has passed through [the] Martinez gateway around procedural default?” Disentangling that sentence is worthy of a Law Journal article, so here goes.

Of the two companion cases, I focus on Jones for ease of exposition.

* * *

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]