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

GREENE v. FISHER

Docket No.: 10-637
Certiorari Granted: 04/04/11
Argued: October 11, 2011
Decided: 11/08/11

Topics:

ADEPA, Confrontation Clause, Death Penalty, First Amendment, Sixth Amendment, criminal procedure, habeas, habeas corpus, harmless error, murder

PartyNames: Eric Greene, aka Jarmaine Q. Trice v. Jon Fisher, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, et al.
Petitioner: Eric Greene, aka Jarmaine Q. Trice
Respondent: Jon Fisher, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Citation: 606 F.3d 85
Supreme Court Docket

Eric Greene, aka Jarmaine Q. Trice
v.
Jon Fisher, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, et al.
Question Presented:

For purposes of adjudicating a state prisoner's petition for federal habeas relief, what is the temporal cutoff for whether a decision from this Court qualifies as "clearly established Federal law" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

Question:

Does a Supreme Court decision qualify as “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, if that Supreme Court decision was entered after the relevant state-court adjudication on the merits ?

GREENE v. FISHER
ORAL ARGUMENT

10/11/11

Listen to Oral Argument in GREENE v. FISHER
Holding: AFFIRMED
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Fisher, 0 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:

GREENE v. FISHER
Case Documents

1Oral Argument Audio
2Oral Argument Audio from October 11, 2011
3Oral Argument Transcript in GREENE v. FISHER
4Opinion in GREENE v. FISHER
5GREENE v. FISHER Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
6GREENE v. FISHER Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
7GREENE v. FISHER Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
Additional documents for this case are pending review.
↑