2025 Term Decisions of Interest to Capital Habeas Practitioners
Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. ___ (Nov. 24, 2025) (per curiam). Reversing grant of habeas relief where the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals "transgressed the party-presentation principle by granting relief on a claim that Sweeney never asserted and that the State never had the chance to address." The only claim raised in Sweeney's federal habeas petition was that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate whether other jurors had been prejudiced by the impermissible visit to the crime-scene by a juror who was discharged prior to deliberations. Instead of ruling on that claim, "the Fourth Circuit devised a new one," based on a combination of failures from juror to judge to attorney. This “radical transformation” of the ineffective-assistance claim “departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted.) The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for consideration of the actual claim raised by Sweeney.
Pitts v. Mississippi, 607 U.S. ___ (Nov. 24, 2025) (per curiam). Although in child abuse cases a court may sometimes screen a child witness from the defendant without violating the Confrontation Clause, it may do so only after hearing evidence and making a “case-specific” finding of “[t]he requisite . . . necessity.” Maryland v. Craig, 497 U. S. 836, 855 (1990) "Simply pointing to a state statute that authorizes screening, even one premised on 'generalized finding[s]' of necessity, will not suffice. Coy [v. Iowa, 487 U. S. 1012, 1021 (1988)]." Because the Mississippi Supreme Court departed from these principles, the judgment is reversed. On remand, the State is free to argue, and the Mississippi Supreme Court may consider, whether the constitutional error was harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).