Withrow v. Williams

Withrow v. Williams
Argued November 3, 1992
Decided April 21, 1993
Full case name Pamela Withrow, Petitioner v. Robert Allen Williams, Jr.
Citations 507 U.S. 680 (more)
113 S. Ct. 1745; 123 L. Ed. 2d 407; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 2980; 61 U.S.L.W. 4352; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2893; 93 Daily Journal DAR 4974; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 191
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
Majority Souter, joined by unanimous (part III); White, Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy (parts I, II, IV)
Concur/dissent O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist
Concur/dissent Scalia, joined by Thomas

Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Fifth Amendment Miranda v. Arizona arguments can be raised again in federal habeas corpus proceedings, even if a criminal defendant had a fair chance to argue those claims in state court.[1] The Court rejected the state's argument that Stone v. Powell, a case holding the opposite in the context of Fourth Amendment claims on habeas review, applied in Williams' case.[2]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 694-95 (1993).
  2. ↑ Withrow, 507 U.S. at 682-83.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.