Klein v. Martin
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Klein v. Martin and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Klein v. Martin.
In Klein v. Martin, the Supreme Court addressed the application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) standards in federal habeas corpus proceedings. The case involved Charles Brandon Martin, who was convicted of attempted murder, and the nondisclosure of impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland. The Court emphasized the duty of federal courts to adhere to AEDPA standards, even when they might disagree with state court decisions.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Klein v. Martin.
The Court held that federal courts must comply with AEDPA standards, even if they would have analyzed the case differently than the state court.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Klein v. Martin. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Klein v. Martin
The case involves the application of AEDPA standards, which relate to the procedural fairness in federal habeas corpus proceedings.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Faithful application of those standards sometimes puts federal district courts and courts of appeals in the disagreeable position of having to deny relief in cases they would have analyzed differently if they had been in the shoes of the relevant state court.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Klein v. Martin
The Court's decision involves reviewing whether lower courts correctly applied AEDPA standards.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)But federal courts are dutybound to comply with AEDPA, and we have granted summary relief when the lower courts have departed from the role AEDPA assigns.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Klein v. Martin
The case indirectly touches on substantive due process through the Brady claim regarding the nondisclosure of evidence.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)State’s failure to disclose certain impeachment evidence that was favorable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), did not warrant a new trial because there was no 'reasonable probability that the result of [the] trial would have been different.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Klein v. Martin that support the summary and concepts above.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), strict standards govern the grant of federal habeas relief to prisoners convicted in state court.
Faithful application of those standards sometimes puts federal district courts and courts of appeals in the disagreeable position of having to deny relief.
Respondent Charles Brandon Martin was convicted in a Maryland court for the attempted murder of one of his girlfriends, Jodi Torok.
