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 |
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 | |
| 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. 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.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 6/6/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.