Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes
| Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes | |
|---|---|
| Decided May 4, 1992 | |
| Full case name | Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes |
| Citations | 504 U.S. 1 (more) |
| Holding | |
| A cause-and-prejudice standard, rather than Fay v. Noia's deliberate bypass standard, is the correct standard for excusing a habeas corpus petitioner's failure to develop a material fact in state-court proceedings. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter, Thomas |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy |
| Dissent | Kennedy |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Townsend v. Sain | |
Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a cause-and-prejudice standard, rather than Fay v. Noia's deliberate bypass standard, is the correct standard for excusing a habeas corpus petitioner's failure to develop a material fact in state-court proceedings.[1] This decision increased the deference that federal courts are supposed to give to the record in underlying state court proceedings when evaluating habeas petitions.[2]
References
External links
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.