Marco Antonio Casillas v. Janan Cavagnolo, Acting Warden

This Court has repeatedly held that courts of appeal should not adjudicate the ultimate merits of a habeas claim when determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability (COA). Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017). Moreover, the COA statute only contemplates looking to the constitutional violation itself—the “denial of a constitutional right”—and not the question of prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Therefore, the first question presented is:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s practice of adjudicating the ultimate merits of a habeas petition at the COA stage, often on prejudice grounds, violates this Court’s decision in Buck and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). An accused, under Chambers, has the right to present necessary and trustworthy evidence of innocence. As to trustworthiness, this Court has cautioned against courts engaging in credibility determinations—the province of the jury. But lower courts are doing just that. Therefore, the second question presented is:

2. Whether Chambers and its progeny preclude courts from engaging in credibility determinations when assessing the “trustworthiness” of excluded evidence.