Williams v. Taylor

Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

Cullen v. Pinholster

Holding that petitioner failed to show prejudice due to the extensive evidence that the prosecution presented

O'Sullivan v. Boerckel

Holding that, to ensure exhaustion a petitioner must present their claims throughout "one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."

Baldwin v. Reese

Holding that "ordinarily a state prisoner does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document) that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim in order to find material ... that does so"

Duncan v. Henry

Holding a claim raised in a state-court proceeding must be presented to that court as a federal constitutional claim or it is not exhausted for federal habeas corpus purposes

United States v. Bagley

Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

Teague v. Lane

Holding that the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively

Harris v. Reed

Holding that a federal court on habeas review may evaluate the merits of a claim where the last state court rendering a judgment on that claim did not "clearly and expressly" state that the judgment rested solely on independent state grounds

Picard v. Connor

Holding that to preserve federal claim for habeas review, "the federal claim must be fairly presented to the state courts"

Anderson v. Harless

Holding claim unexhausted when federal constitutional basis of claim was unclear

Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Section 2244 - Finality of determination

Holding that § 2255 incorporates § 2244(b) as part of the certification procedures of § 2244 and instructing that "the district court must dismiss the motion that we have allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion."

Section 40-30-102 - When prisoners may petition for post-conviction relief

Providing a one-year limitations period for post-conviction relief and a restriction on successive state petitions

Section 40-18-116 - Sequestration of jurors