Zuluaga v. Spencer

Filing 920091019

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = '                   Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = '                   For this analysis, "[t]he ultimate question . . . is not\
how well reasoned the state court decision is, but whether the\
outcome is reasonable." Hurtado v. Tucker, 245 F.3d 7, 20 (1st\
Cir. 2001). A decision that is incorrect does not necessarily rise\
to the level of being unreasonable. Williams, 529 U.S. at 410;\
Teti v. Bender, 507 F.3d 50, 57 (1st Cir. 2007).\
'

var WPFootnote3 = '                   The fundamental Fortini distinction--between cases in\
which a state court\'s adjudication on the merits necessitates\
deferential habeas review and cases where a state court\'s failure\
to "resolve all determinative issues of federal law" renders de\
novo review appropriate--is commonly accepted. See 1 Hertz &\
Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 32.2 at\
1569 & nn. 6-7 (5th ed. 2005).\
'

var WPFootnote4 = '                   If this were not a matter of an underlying congressional\
command, but merely of judicial rules, we recognize that there is\
an argument for a bright-line test. It would be far easier to\
administer a test that deference is given only when the state court\
cites to federal authority or state authority that subsumes the\
federal standard. But both Supreme Court precedent and our\
precedent look to the substance of what Congress sought to\
accomplish. As noted above, AEDPA\'s text offers no indication that\
deference is owed only when the state court cites to a case.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = '                   We need not address his claim that there is an exception\
for claims of bias or, indeed, whether prior bad acts are evidence\
of bias. This argument was not clearly presented to the state\
courts.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = '                   We have previously recognized the possibility of a viable\
Brady claim concerning evidence that, although inadmissible, "could\
be so promising a lead to strong exculpatory evidence that there\
could be no justification for withholding it." Ellsworth, 333 F.3d\
at 5 (emphasis in original). Zuluaga has not argued that the\
disputed material would have led to additional exculpatory\
evidence.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "