Williams v. Taylor (Michael Williams)

Last updated

Williams v. Taylor
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 28, 2000
Decided April 18, 2000
Full case nameMichael Wayne Williams, Petitioner v. John Taylor, Warden
Citations529 U.S. 420 ( more )
120 S. Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorWilliams v. Taylor, 189 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 1999).
Holding
Under §2254(e)(2), as amended by AEDPA, a "fail[ure] to develop" a claim's factual basis in state-court proceedings is not established unless there is lack of diligence, or some greater fault, attributable to the prisoner or his counsel. The statute does not bar the evidentiary hearing petitioner seeks on his juror bias and prosecutorial misconduct claims, but bars a hearing on his Brady claim because he "failed to develop" that claim's factual basis in state court and concedes his inability to satisfy the statute's further stringent conditions for excusing the deficiency.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityKennedy, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the interpretation of a provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The case was argued on February 28, 2000, and decided on April 18, 2000. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that the provision at issue [1] only bars evidentiary hearings by state prisoners in federal habeas proceedings if "there is lack of diligence, or some greater fault, attributable to the prisoner or his counsel". [2] This case concerned a convicted murderer, Michael Wayne Williams, who was incarcerated at Sussex State Prison in Waverly, Virginia. Confusingly, it was decided on the same day as another case called Williams v. Taylor , which concerned Terry Williams, a different convicted murderer incarcerated at the same prison; both cases named the prison's warden at the time, John B. Taylor, as the respondent. [3]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act</span> 1994 U.S. federal law

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly referred to as the 1994 Crime Bill, or the Clinton Crime Bill, is an Act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement; it became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States and consisted of 356 pages that provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers. Sponsored by U.S. Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, the bill was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware drafted the Senate version of the legislation in cooperation with the National Association of Police Organizations, also incorporating the Assault Weapons ban and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with Senator Orrin Hatch.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women</span> Womens prison in Bedford, New York

Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, a women's prison in the town of Bedford, New York, is the only maximum security New York State women's prison. The prison previously opened under the name Westfield State Farm in 1901. It lies just outside the hamlet and census-designated place Bedford Hills, New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parole</span> Conditional release of a prisoner

Parole, also known as provisional release, supervised release, or being on paper, is a form of early release of a prison inmate where the prisoner agrees to abide by behavioral conditions, including checking-in with their designated parole officers, or else they may be rearrested and returned to prison.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in the United States</span>

In the United States, capital punishment is a legal penalty in 27 states, throughout the country at the federal level, and in American Samoa. It is also a legal penalty for some military offenses. Capital punishment has been abolished in the other 23 states and in the federal capital, Washington, D.C. It is usually applied for only the most serious crimes, such as aggravated murder. Although it is a legal penalty in 27 states, 20 of them have authority to execute death sentences, with the other 7, as well as the federal government and military, subject to moratoriums.

The year and a day rule is associated with the former common law standard that death could not be legally attributed to acts or omissions that occurred more than a year and a day before the death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span>

Capital punishment in India is the highest legal penalty for crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

The People of the State of California v. Robert Page Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628, was a landmark case in the state of California that outlawed capital punishment for nine months until the enactment of a constitutional amendment reinstating it, Proposition 17.

The Wichita Massacre, also known as the Wichita Horror, was a week-long violent crime spree perpetrated by brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr, in the city of Wichita, Kansas, between December 8 and 15, 2000. Five people were killed, and two people, a man and a woman, were severely wounded. The brothers were arrested and convicted of multiple counts of murder, kidnapping, robbery, and rape. They were both sentenced to death in October 2002. Their vicious crimes created panic in the Wichita area resulting in an increase in the sales of guns, locks, and home security systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Utah State Prison</span> Former mixed security prison in Draper, Utah, United States

Utah State Prison (USP) was one of two prisons managed by the Utah Department of Corrections' Division of Institutional Operations. It was located in Draper, Utah, United States, about 20 miles (32 km) southwest of Salt Lake City. It was replaced by the Utah State Correctional Facility in July 2022.

In the United States, life imprisonment is the most severe punishment provided by law in states with no valid capital punishment statute, and second-most in those with a valid statute. According to a 2013 study, one of every 2,000 prison inhabitants of the U.S. were imprisoned for life as of 2012.

Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1879), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah in stating that execution by firing squad, as prescribed by the Utah territorial statute, was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lynching of Ed Johnson</span> African American who was lynched in the U.S.

On March 19, 1906, Ed Johnson, a young African American man, was murdered by a lynch mob in his home town of Chattanooga, Tennessee. He had been wrongfully sentenced to death for the rape of Nevada Taylor, but Justice John Marshall Harlan of the United States Supreme Court had issued a stay of execution. To prevent delay or avoidance of execution, a mob broke into the jail where Johnson was held, and abducted and lynched him from the Walnut Street Bridge.

The innocent prisoner's dilemma, or parole deal, is a detrimental effect of a legal system in which admission of guilt can result in reduced sentences or early parole. When an innocent person is wrongly convicted of a crime, legal systems which need the individual to admit guilt — as, for example, a prerequisite step leading to parole — punish an innocent person for their integrity, and reward a person lacking in integrity. There have been cases where innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for claiming guilt, and remaining imprisoned and telling the truth. Individuals have died in prison rather than admit to crimes that they did not commit, including in the face of a plausible chance at release.

Williams v. Taylor may refer to the following United States Supreme Court cases:

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that its previous ruling in Miller v. Alabama (2012), that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons convicted of murder committed as juveniles, should be applied retroactively. This decision potentially affects up to 2,300 cases nationwide.

Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the petitioner, Bryan Lankford, had been unconstitutionally sentenced to death in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held 5–4 that Lankford had not received adequate notice that he could be sentenced to death before the trial judge imposed such a sentence on him, and therefore reversed the prior ruling to the contrary by the Idaho Supreme Court.

Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on May 14, 2007. In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the District Court had not abused its discretion when it refused to grant an evidentiary hearing to convicted murderer Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan who had instructed his defense counsel not to put on any mitigation case during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial. In doing so, the Supreme Court also reversed the prior ruling to the contrary by the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had held that Landrigan was entitled to habeas relief on the grounds that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The latter court had also held that the District Court's denial of such a hearing to Landrigan amounted to an "unreasonable determination of the facts", which is one of the two circumstances under which the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 permits the granting of federal habeas relief to state prisoners.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on April 18, 2000. It concerned a federal habeas corpus petition brought by convicted murderer Terry Williams, who alleged that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Supreme Court's prior decision in Strickland v. Washington. The Supreme Court's decision in this case was split across two majority opinions, one authored by John Paul Stevens and joined by five other justices, and the other authored by Sandra Day O'Connor and joined by four other justices.

References

  1. 28 U.S.C.   § 2254(e)(2)
  2. Williams v. Taylor (Michael Williams), 529 U.S. 420 (2000)
  3. Greenhouse, Linda (April 19, 2000). "Justices Force 2 New Hearings On Death Row". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved June 1, 2024.