Court Opinions

State Laws

US Code

US Constitution

Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 9 (2002) (per curiam)

Legal Research Home > United States Supreme Court > 537 U.S. > Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 9 (2002) (per curiam)

Cite as: 537 U. S. 19 (2002)

Per Curiam

Perhaps so. However, "under § 2254(d)(1), it is not enough to convince a federal habeas court that, in its independent judgment, the state-court decision applied Strickland incorrectly." Bell, 535 U. S., at 699. The federal habeas scheme leaves primary responsibility with the state courts for these judgments, and authorizes federal-court intervention only when a state-court decision is objectively unreasonable. It is not that here. Whether or not we would reach the same conclusion as the California Supreme Court, "we think at the very least that the state court's contrary assessment was not 'unreasonable.' " Id., at 701. Habeas relief is therefore not permissible under § 2254(d).

* * *

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is

Reversed.

27

Last modified: October 4, 2007