Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Christopher Klein, Superintendent, Department of Detention Facilities for Anne Arundel County, et al. v. Charles Brandon Martin
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 24-6086 · judgment January 16, 2025
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) establishes a “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In this case, a Maryland appellate court rejected respondent’s postconviction claim that the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), holding that there was not a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different had the suppressed evidence been timely disclosed to the defense considering the strength of other evidence establishing his guilt. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit concluded that although the state court correctly articulated applicable federal law, the state court’s application of that law was unreasonable because its written analysis of the evidence was, in the Forth Circuit’s view, insufficiently “nuanced” and “exhaustive[].” App. 23a, 26a (citation omitted). The question presented is: Did the Fourth Circuit violate AEDPA’s deferential standard by overturning a state-court decision based on the supposed lack of “nuance” and “exhaustiveness” in the court’s written opinion, rather than the reasonableness of its legal conclusion?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Andrew John DiMiceli
Maryland Office of the Attorney General
For respondent
Parker Andrew Rider-Longmaid
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Proceedings
- Feb 27 2026Judgment Issued.
- Jan 26 2026Petition GRANTED. Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion of the Court. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Jackson would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Jan 20 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/23/2026.
- Jan 12 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
- Jan 05 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
- Dec 08 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/12/2025.
- Dec 01 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/5/2025.
- Nov 17 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/21/2025.
- Nov 10 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/14/2025.
- Nov 03 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
- Oct 14 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/17/2025.
- Oct 06 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
- Sep 10 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
- Sep 10 2025Reply of petitioners Christopher Klein, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 27 2025Brief of respondent Charles Martin in opposition filed.
- Jul 17 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 27, 2025.
- Jul 16 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 14, 2025 to August 27, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 11 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 14, 2025)
- May 01 2025Application (24A1048) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 11, 2025.
- Apr 25 2025Application (24A1048) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 12, 2025 to July 11, 2025, submitted to The Chief Justice.