Clark v. Sweeney

The defendant, Jeremiah Sweeney, had been convicted by a Maryland jury of second‑degree murder (among other crimes. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and a state post‑conviction relief effort failed, Sweeney filed a federal habeas petition. He argued that his criminal trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective. Specifically, his claim was that after one juror (Juror 4) visited the crime scene on his own initiative — and was subsequently dismissed — counsel should have asked to voir dire (i.e. question) the remaining jurors to assess whether any had been tainted by that visit. The lower federal district court denied habeas relief. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial — even though the theory they relied on (ineffective counsel for not voir‑direing the full jury) was one Sweeney never had raised. Thus, the core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Fourth Circuit acted properly in granting habeas relief — i.e., ordering a new trial — on a claim that was never presented by the defendant, in violation of the “party‑presentation principle.” In a unanimous, per curiam decision issued November 24, 2025, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case.  The Court held that the Fourth Circuit “departed dramatically from the principle of party presentation” by granting habeas relief based on a claim that the petitioner never had presented. In other words: courts should not raise new arguments or theories unprompted by the parties. By doing so, the Fourth Circuit abused its discretion. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.