Supreme Court of the United States
Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes
May 4, 1992504 U.S. 1
Summary
Justice White, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Souter, and Thomas, held that a state prisoner's failure to develop material facts in state court is governed by cause and actual prejudice, rather than deliberate bypass, when determining entitlement to a federal habeas evidentiary hearing. The Court overruled Townsend v. Sain to that extent, recognized a fundamental-miscarriage-of-justice exception, and reversed and remanded to allow Tamayo-Reyes to establish cause and prejudice. It also rejected the argument that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) preserved Townsend's hearing standard. Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Blackmun, Stevens, and Kennedy, dissented, distinguishing access to habeas review from the opportunity to prove a properly presented claim and arguing that the new rule conflicted with the statutory framework. Justice Kennedy separately dissented, emphasizing the narrow class of affected cases and the importance of accurate factfinding.
Holding
- The standard governing failure to develop material facts in state-court proceedings.. A petitioner seeking a federal habeas evidentiary hearing after failing to develop material facts in state court must show cause for that failure and actual prejudice resulting from it. Townsend's contrary deliberate-bypass rule is overruled.
- An exception to the cause-and-prejudice requirement.. A federal evidentiary hearing is required despite failure to establish cause and prejudice if the petitioner shows that failure to hold the hearing would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
- The effect of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) on the standard for requiring a hearing.. Section 2254(d) does not codify Townsend's requirements for evidentiary hearings or require retention of its deliberate-bypass standard.
Docket 90-1859