Abdur’rahman v. Bell
Abdur’rahman was tried and convicted of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and armed robbery. He received the death penalty for the murder conviction and two consecutive life terms for the each of the other convictions. The death sentence was imposed pursuant to the jury's finding of three aggravating circumstances. Abdur’rahman sought and was denied state habeas relief and then sought federal habeas relief on the grounds that his counsel’s representation was ineffective throughout the trial due to failure to investigate, present potentially exculpatory evidence, and present mitigating evidence at the sentencing stage. The district court denied relief from the murder conviction but vacated the death sentence. The court of appeals affirmed in part (the denial of relief) and reversed in part (reinstating the death sentence).
Questions Presented:
1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding, in square conflict with decisions of this Court and of other circuits, that every Rule 60(b) Motion constitutes a prohibited ”second or
successive” habeas petition as a matter of law.
2. Whether a court of appeals abuses its discretion in refusing to permit consideration of a vital intervening legal development when the failure to do so precludes a habeas petitioner from ever
receiving any adjudication of his claims on the merits.
