The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, February 28, 2000
Decision: Tuesday, April 18, 2000
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus

Advocates

John H. Blume (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Donald R. Curry (Richmond, Virginia, argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Michael Wayne Williams was sentenced to death after he was convicted of two capital murders. Ultimately, Williams sought federal habeas relief, in which he requested an evidentiary hearing on three constitutional claims, regarding the fairness of his trial, which he had tried unsuccessfully to develop in the state-court proceedings. The District Court granted Williams' evidentiary hearing. However, before any hearing could be held, the Court of Appeals granted the Commonwealth's requests for an emergency stay and for a writ of mandamus and prohibition. The Commonwealth argued that Williams' evidentiary hearing was prohibited by federal law as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). On remand, the District Court dismissed Williams' petition citing the AEDPA statute and finding that Williams failed to show "actual innocence." In affirming, the Court of Appeals found that Williams could not satisfy the statute's conditions for excusing his failure to develop the facts of his claims and barred him from receiving an evidentiary hearing.

Question

Does federal law, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, bar an evidentiary hearing, if the petitioner has failed to develop the factual basis of his claims in State court proceedings despite diligent efforts?

Conclusion

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that under federal law, as amended by the AEDPA, "a 'failure 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." Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court that "comity is not served by saying a prisoner 'has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim' where he was unable to develop his claim in state court despite diligent effort. In that circumstance, an evidentiary hearing is not barred."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Williams, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote the majority opinion
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_6615/>
(last visited ).