Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Court in No. 91-1030, Withrow against Williams will be announced by Justice Souter.
Argument of Justice Souter
Mr. Souter: This case comes to us on writ of certiorari in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The respondent, Williams, brought this habeas actions challenging the legality of the state convictions for murder and other offenses.
Williams alleged that the State Court had erred in allowing the introduction of statements solicited from him by the police in violation of his right in the Miranda v. Arizona.
The District Court agreed and granted relief.
The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court of Appeals rejected the state's argument that federal habeas review of Williams' Miranda claim should be barred under the rule in Stone and Powell, which holds that federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims is not available when a state has given a full and fair chance to litigate such claims.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk of the Court today we affirm and hold at Stone's restriction on the exercise of federal habeas jurisdiction does not extend to Miranda claims.
The equitable considerations that formed the basis for a decision in Stone do not obtain here.
Most importantly, eliminating review of Miranda claims would not significantly benefit the Federal Courts in their exercise of habeas jurisdiction or advanced the cause of federalism in any substantial way.
Justice O'Connor has filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which the Chief Justice joins; Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part which Justice Thomas joins.
