Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US Supreme Court: 05-1575

US Supreme Court: 05-1575

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1 |Likes:
Published by Supreme Court

More info:

Published by: Supreme Court on Jan 19, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
Official - Subject to Final Review
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x3 DORA B. SCHRIRO, DIRECTOR, :4 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF :5 CORRECTIONS, :6 Petitioner :7 v. : No. 05-15758 JEFFREY TIMOTHY LANDRIGAN, AKA :9 BILLY PATRICK WAYNE HILL. :10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x11 Washington, D.C.12 Tuesday, January 9, 20071314 The above-entitled matter came on for15 oral argument before the Supreme Court of the16 United States at 10:56 a.m.17 APPEARANCES:18 KENT E. CATTANI, ESQ., Phoenix, Ariz; Assistant19 Attorney General, on behalf of the Petitioner20 DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR., Washington, D.C.; on21 behalf of the Respondent222324251
Alderson Reporting Company
 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
C O N T E N T SORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGEKENT E. CATTANI, ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 3DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR., ESQ.On behalf of the Respondent 312
Alderson Reporting Company
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425
Official - Subject to Final Review
P R O C E E D I N G S(10:56 a.m.)CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear argumentnext in 05-1575, Schriro versus Landrigan.Mr. Cattani.ORAL ARGUMENT OF KENT E. CATTANION BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERMR. CATTANI: Mr. Chief Justice, and may itplease the Court:The Ninth Circuit's rejection of a reasonedState court factual determination and decision isimproper under any deferential standard of review, andit is particularly improper under the highly deferentialstandard of review required under the AEDPA. Thismorning I'd like to try to develop three -- threepoints.First, the State court's factual findingthat Landrigan instructed his attorney not to presentany mitigating evidence was not an unreasonable findingand, in fact, is the most logical interpretation of therecord. Although Landrigan now argues that the recorddoes not show whether his decision not to presentmitigation evidence was knowing or voluntary, that isnot a claim that was ever developed in State court. Henever alleged in his State post-conviction proceedings3
Alderson Reporting Company

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->