U.S. Sup. Ct.

CLARK v. SWEENEY

November 24, 2025 ·25-52 ·Panel Decision ·Per Curiam · By Raj Patel

The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision to grant a new trial based on a claim the petitioner never raised. The Court held that the lower court violated the principle of party presentation by addressing an issue the State never had a chance to defend.

Background

Jeremiah Sweeney was convicted of second-degree murder in Maryland after a juror visited the crime scene during deliberations. Sweeney sought postconviction relief and federal habeas corpus, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to question the entire jury about the visit. The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of relief, but based its decision on a new claim regarding a combination of failures by the juror, judge, and attorney that deprived Sweeney of an impartial jury.

The court’s reasoning

The Court held that the Fourth Circuit transgressed the principle of party presentation by granting relief on a claim Sweeney never asserted. In an adversarial system, parties frame the issues for decision while the court serves as a neutral arbiter. The Fourth Circuit’s radical transformation of the ineffective-assistance claim into a due-process claim constituted an abuse of discretion.

In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation.

United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U. S. 371, 375 (2020)

What it means going forward

The Fourth Circuit must now analyze the ineffective-assistance claim that Sweeney originally asserted, applying the doubly deferential standard of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.