Schriro v. Landrigan
2007 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. 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.[1][2] The Supreme Court's decision also found that a criminal defendant could waive the right for their lawyer to present mitigating evidence on their behalf, and that such a waiver did not have to be "knowing and intelligent" in order to be valid, even in a capital case.[3]
Schriro v. Landrigan | |
---|---|
Argued January 9, 2007 Decided May 14, 2007 | |
Full case name | Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Petitioner v. Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan, aka Billy Patrick Wayne Hill |
Docket no. | 05-1575 |
Citations | 550 U.S. 465 (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | 441 F. 3d 638 (CA9 2006) |
Subsequent | 501 F. 3d 1147 (CA9 2007) |
Holding | |
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Landrigan an evidentiary hearing. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Laws applied | |
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 |