Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Rice v. Collins

Docket No.: 04-52
Certiorari Granted: Jun 28 2005
Argued: December 5, 2005
Decided: January 18, 2006

Topics:

Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus

PartyNames: Bertram Rice, Warden, et al. v. Steven Martell Collins
Petitioner: Bertram Rice, Warden, et al.
Respondent: Steven Martell Collins

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Bertram Rice, Warden, et al.
v.
Steven Martell Collins
546 U.S. 333 (2006)
Background:

1. Section 2254(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides: "An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim- (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States...." Section 2254(e) (1) provides: "In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. "

Question Presented:

The Question Presented is: Does 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 allow a federal habeas corpus court to reject the presumption of correctness for state fact-fining, and condemn a state-court adjudication as an unreasonable determination of the facts, where a rational fact-finder could have determined the facts as did the state court?

Question:

Does the AEDPA allow a federal court to reject the presumption of correctness for a state-court finding of fact as an "unreasonable determination of the facts," even when a rational fact finder could have determined the facts as the state court did?

Holding: reversed and remanded
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Read RICE V. COLLINS opinion (PDF)

Read opinion

Other Resources for Rice v. Collins:
resource.org
justia.com
wikipedia.org