Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 80 Part 1.djvu/1141

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page needs to be proofread.
[80 STAT. 1105]
[80 STAT. 1105]
PUBLIC LAW 89-000—MMMM. DD, 1966

80 STAT. ]

PUBLIC LAW 89-711-NOV. 2, 1966

that the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus could not have caused such fact to appear in such record by the exercise of reasonable diligence." SEC. 2. Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code is amended— (a) by amending the catchline of the section to read as follows: "§2254. State custody; remedies in Federal courts." (b) by inserting in such section, immediately after the catchline thereof, the following new subsection: •'(a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."; and (c) by inserting at the beginning of the two paragraphs thereof existing on the day preceding the date of enactment of this Act the subsection designations " (b) " and " (c) ", respectively; and (d) by inserting immediately after such paragraphs the following new subsections " (d) ", " (e)", and " (f) "; " (ni) I n any proceeding instituted in a Federal court by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding to which the applicant for the writ and the State or an officer or agent thereof were parties, evidenced by a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct, unless the applicant shall establish or it shall otherwise appear, or the respondent shall admit— " (1) that the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the State court hearing; "(2) that the facthnding procedure employed by the State court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing; "(3) that the material facts were not adequately developed at the State court hearing; "(4) that the State court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or over the person of the applicant in the State court proceeding; "(5) that the applicant w'as an indigent and the State court, in deprivation of his constitutional right, failed to appoint counsel to represent him in the State court proceeding; " (6) that the applicant did not receive a full, fair, and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding; or "(7) that the applicant was otherwise denied due process of law in the State court proceeding; " (8) or unless that part of the record of the State court proceeding in which the determination of such factual issue was made, pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support such factual determination, is produced as provided for hereinafter, and the Federal court on a consideration of such part of the record as a whole concludes that such factual determination is not fairly supported by the record: And in an evidentiary hearing in the proceeding in the Federal court, when due proof of such factual determination has been made, unless


62 Stat. 967.