Skinner v. Switzer

Last updated

Skinner v. Switzer
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 13, 2010
Decided March 7, 2011
Full case nameHenry W. Skinner v. Lynn Switzer, District Attorney
Docket no. 09-9000
Citations562 U.S. 521 ( more )
131 S. Ct. 1289; 179 L. Ed. 2d 233
Case history
PriorDefendant conviction affirmed, 956 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. Crim. App., 1997); federal relief denied sub nom. Skinner v. Quarterman, 2007 WL 582808 (N.D. Tex., 2007); affirmed, 576 F.3d 214 (5th Cir., 2009); additional testing request under state law denied, 122 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App., 2003); additional motion denied, 293 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. Crim. App., 2009); affirmed, 363 Fed.Appx. 302 (5th Cir., 2010); certiorari granted, 560 U.S. 924(2010).
Holding
Because federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction existed over Skinner’s complaint, his claim was cognizable under §1983. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentThomas, joined by Kennedy, Alito

Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the route through which a prisoner may obtain biological DNA material for testing to challenge his conviction; whether through a civil rights suit or a habeas corpus petition. A majority of the Court held that the civil rights path was the appropriate path.

Contents

Background

Henry Skinner was convicted of murdering his girlfriend in 1995, and sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) affirmed. [1] On March 26, 1998, Skinner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Texas courts. It was subsequently dismissed as untimely and the CCA affirmed. In 1999, he filed a federal habeas petition. At the same time, he began pushing for DNA testing of materials in the original case by the District Attorney's office. The testing was conducted by a private office and resulted in mixed results; however Skinner wanted what he called 'independent' testing. [1]

He filed claims in Texas court for his own DNA testing but his attempts did not succeed. He also filed a second successive federal habeas petition demanding DNA testing of all evidence; this was an independent claim as well as a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (his attorney did not request DNA testing of certain evidence at trial). A federal magistrate held a hearing, rejected the petition, which a district judge eventually confirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. [2] The Supreme Court entered a stay of execution and granted a writ of certiorari to hear the case. [3] [4]

Oral Arguments

The Court heard oral arguments on October 13, 2010. The Court focused the questioning on the boundary between habeas claims and §1983 claims (violations of civil rights). [5] Robert C. Owen, attorney for Skinner, started by narrowing the scope of their appeal to seeking "only access to evidence for DNA testing". Justice Alito was skeptical of the path Skinner was using in order to get the DNA testing. He stated that it was just a backdoor attempt "in overturning [a prisoner's] conviction". [6] Owen then turned to practical considerations of the case, emphasizing that there would be no flood of §1983 cases. He relied on evidence from multiple Courts of Appeal to demonstrate that no such rush would occur. As Owen concluded his argument, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer attacked Skinner's original complaint.

After Owen concluded, Gregory S. Coleman, arguing for District Attorney Lynn Switzer, opened by stating that Skinner's case was just a Brady claim about access to material. Justice Breyer then moved the focus to the question of a substantive civil right: "what Skinner wants is the DNA. He thinks it's going to be exculpatory. He doesn't know until he gets it." Coleman still challenged whether this is the proper subject of a habeas corpus claim. Justices further questioned where the distinction between the two types of claims (civil rights violations and habeas) lay. Hypotheticals to test this distinction drew criticism from Justice Kennedy. Coleman then concluded by arguing that the only way Skinner could make a claim is to argue the DNA testing law of Texas is "unconstitutional" not a habeas claim.

Opinion of the Court

In a 6 to 3 decision delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction existed over Skinner’s complaint, and that his claim was cognizable under §1983. Justices Thomas, Kennedy and Alito dissented. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Henry Watkins Skinner was an American death row inmate in Texas. In 1995, he was convicted of bludgeoning to death his live-in girlfriend, Twila Busby, and stabbing to death her two adult sons, Randy Busby and Elwin Caler. On March 24, 2010, twenty minutes before his scheduled execution, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of execution to consider the question of whether Skinner could request testing of DNA his attorney chose not to have tested at his original trial in 1994. A third execution date for November 9, 2011, was also ultimately stayed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on November 7, 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the Constitution's due process clause does not require states to turn over DNA evidence to a party seeking a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

<i>Leal Garcia v. Texas</i> 2011 United States Supreme Court case

Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011), was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied Humberto Leal García's application for stay of execution and application for writ of habeas corpus. Leal was subsequently executed by lethal injection. The central issue was not Leal's guilt, but rather that he was not notified of his right to call his consulate as required by international law. The Court did not stay the execution because Congress had never enacted legislation regarding this provision of international law. The ruling attracted a great deal of commentary and Leal's case was supported by attorneys specializing in international law and several former United States diplomats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2014 term, which began October 6, 2014 and concluded October 4, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II, is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.

Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether a federal court sitting in a habeas corpus proceeding should "look through" a summary ruling to review the last reasoned decision by a state court.

Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that detained immigrants do not have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings.

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Indian country.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.

Shoop v. Twyford, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' habeas corpus petitions.

Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to habeas corpus.

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case about ineffective assistance of counsel claims which allowed a narrow exception to Coleman v. Thompson. Coleman said that inadequate post-conviction counsel is not cause to excuse procedural default for a state habeas claim that was filed late under the state's procedural rules. The Supreme Court may excuse a procedural default if state procedures do not allow at least one "full and fair" opportunity to litigate the constitutional claim. The narrow holding of Martinez excused procedural default caused by attorney error in "initial review collateral proceedings" where state law requires that ineffective assistance claims are raised in post-conviction proceedings and makes no provision for post-conviction counsel.

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, is a 2011 United States Supreme Court case concerning evidentiary development in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Oral arguments in the case took place on November 9, 2010, and the Supreme Court issued its decision on April 4, 2011. The Supreme Court held 5–4 that only evidence originally presented before the state court in which the claim was originally adjudicated on the merits could be presented when raising a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and that evidence from a federal habeas court could not be presented in such proceedings. It also held that the convicted murderer Scott Pinholster, the respondent in the case, was not entitled to the habeas relief he had been granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

References

  1. 1 2 "Public Education Homepage". www.americanbar.org.
  2. ↑ "Google Scholar" . Retrieved December 2, 2012.
  3. ↑ "Certiorari - summary disposition" (PDF). May 24, 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2010.
  4. ↑ "Google Scholar". May 24, 2010. Retrieved December 2, 2012.
  5. ↑ "Argument recap: Drawing a line between habeas and Section 1983". SCOTUSblog. October 14, 2010. Retrieved December 2, 2012.
  6. ↑ "Henry W. Skinner v. Lynn Switzer" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. October 13, 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 1, 2017. Retrieved June 27, 2017.
  7. ↑ Text of Decision
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.