## Facts

- Two Arizona death-row prisoners, David Ramirez and Barry Lee Jones, were convicted in separate capital cases and had their convictions and sentences affirmed on direct review.
- In each case, state postconviction counsel in the initial collateral proceeding failed to raise (or properly develop) an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (IATC) claim supported by key mitigation or exculpatory evidence.
- When the prisoners later attempted to raise the IATC claims, state courts rejected them under state procedural rules, resulting in procedural default.
- Each prisoner filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting IATC and arguing, under *Martinez v. Ryan*, that ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel supplied “cause” to excuse the default.
- The federal district courts permitted development and consideration of evidence outside the state-court record (including expert and other testimony) to address cause, prejudice, and the merits of the IATC claims; the Ninth Circuit approved that approach in each case (reversing and remanding in Ramirez; affirming relief in Jones).
- The Supreme Court consolidated the cases to determine whether AEDPA’s limits on evidentiary development permit federal courts to consider such extra-record evidence when *Martinez* is invoked.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) permits a federal habeas court to hold an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence outside the state-court record to support a defaulted IATC claim when the prisoner relies on ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel under *Martinez*.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that, under § 2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.
- Because postconviction counsel’s lack of diligence in developing the factual basis in state court is attributed to the prisoner, the prisoners had “failed to develop” the record for purposes of § 2254(e)(2).
- Neither prisoner satisfied § 2254(e)(2)’s narrow exceptions allowing new evidence, so federal courts could not rely on extra-record evidence for either the cause-and-prejudice inquiry or the merits of the IATC claims.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas review generally requires proper presentation of claims in state court; otherwise, the claim is procedurally defaulted and may be reviewed only upon a showing of cause and actual prejudice.
- *Martinez v. Ryan* creates a narrow equitable exception allowing ineffective assistance of counsel in an initial-review collateral proceeding to serve as cause for default of a substantial IATC claim in certain state systems.
- AEDPA § 2254(e)(2) sharply restricts federal evidentiary development when the prisoner “failed to develop the factual basis” of a claim in state court; absent specified conditions (including strict requirements tied to new law or new facts plus a demanding innocence showing), a federal court cannot hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim.
- *Martinez* does not override § 2254(e)(2); equitable cause rules cannot expand statutory limits on new evidence in federal habeas proceedings.
- Failures by state postconviction counsel to develop and present evidence in state court are attributed to the prisoner for § 2254(e)(2) purposes.

## Conclusion

The Court held that AEDPA § 2254(e)(2) generally prevents federal habeas courts from considering evidence not developed in state court to support *Martinez*-based cause for a defaulted IATC claim, substantially limiting extra-record factual development in such cases.


Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022)