Klein v. Martin

Questions presented

SCOTUS records

QUESTION PRESENTED The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) establishes a “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In this case, a Maryland appellate court rejected respondent’s postconviction claim that the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), holding that there was

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

A Maryland prisoner sought federal habeas relief after claiming the State violated Brady by not disclosing a forensic report about computers found at his home. He argued the report would have undermined a witness who said he had used a laptop to research homemade gun silencers before the shooting. The Court, in a per curiam opinion, held that AEDPA required denial of relief because the Maryland appellate court’s decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The Court said the state court used the correct Brady materiality rule and that the Fourth Circuit erred by treating the state court as if it had used the wrong legal standard and by concluding no fairminded jurist could find the report immaterial. The Court emphasized the strong evidence tying the petitioner to the crime, including the weapon, the modified bottle, DNA evidence, and other witness testimony.