Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez

The case asks whether a federal court may consider new evidence that was not developed in state court when a prisoner's state postconviction lawyer was ineffective. It arises from two Arizona death row prisoners who say their trial lawyers were ineffective and that later lawyering failures kept those claims from being fully presented.

The case is pending, and no oral argument is scheduled yet. The dispute is whether the Martinez v. Ryan rule can let federal courts review new evidence despite the limits in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).

The answer could shape how hard it is for prisoners to get federal review of serious claims after mistakes in state postconviction proceedings. For example, a death row inmate with new evidence about poor trial representation may or may not get a federal judge to look at it.

Watch for the Court to schedule oral argument or make another move in the case. No decision window is available yet.

The fight is over whether federal judges may look at new evidence outside the state-court record. That issue comes up when a prisoner's state postconviction lawyer was ineffective.

Prisoners seeking federal habeas review after serious state-lawyering mistakes could be most affected. That includes inmates with severe sentences, such as death row prisoners.

Readers should watch for oral argument to be scheduled or for another docket move. The Court has not provided a decision window yet.