Cases by Issue - Plea Bargaining

Bradshaw v. Stumpf

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-637

Petitioner

Margaret Bradshaw, Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John David Stumpf

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

545 U.S. ___ (2005)

Granted

Friday, January 7, 2005

Argued

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Decided

Monday, June 13, 2005

Advocates

Douglas R. Cole (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Alan M. Freedman (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

In Ohio state court proceedings, Stumpf pled guilty in to aggravated murder committed in an armed robbery. That robbery had left Mr. Stout wounded and Mrs. Stout dead. While Stumpf admitted to shooting Mr. Stout, he insisted his accomplice Wesley had shot Mrs. Stout. A three-judge panel ruled Stumpf the principal offender in Mrs. Stout's murder and sentenced him to death. Following this, in Wesley's trial, the state presented evidence that Wesley had admitted to shooting Mrs. Stout. After Wesley's trial, Stumpf moved to withdraw his plea or reverse his death sentence, arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecution in Wesley's trial was inconsistent with what it had presented in his own. This, Stumpf argued, cast doubt on his conviction and sentence. Stumpf's motion was unscucessful in Ohio courts. A federal district court denied Stumpf habeas relief, but the Sixth Circuit reversed.

Question

(1) Was Stumpf's guilty plea to aggravated murder knowing, voluntary and intelligent? (2) Was his conviction valid, despite the state's use of a theory in the trial of Stumpf's accomplice that was inconsistent with its argument in Stumpf's trial?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bradshaw, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Yes and possibly not. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that Stumpf's plea was knowing and therefore valid, because his attorneys at the plea hearing had represented that they had explained the elements to Stumpf, who then confirmed this. The Court articulated the broad rule that constitutional requirements were satisfied when a defendant's competent counsel explained to him the charge's nature and the crime's elements. As for the prosecution's use of inconsistent theories in Stumpf's and Wesley's trials, the Court held that Stumpf's sentence may have been invalid, depending on the relationship between the prosecutor's conduct and Stumpf's death sentence.. The Court sent the question of that relationship back to the Sixth Circuit.

United States v. Dominguez Benitez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-167

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Carlos Dominguez Benitez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

542 U.S. 74 (2004)

Granted

Monday, December 8, 2003

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Decided

Monday, June 14, 2004

Advocates

Myra D Mossman (argued the cause for Respondent)

Dan Himmelfarb (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Carlos Dominguez Benitez confessed to selling drugs to an informant. He made a plea agreement with the government in which he would plead guilty to conspiracy to sell drugs, which normally carried a 10-year minimum sentence. However, the government agreed to ask the judge to reduce the sentence below that minimum. The plea agreement also said that, if the judge did not agree to the government's request to lower the sentence, Dominguez could not withdraw his guilty plea. During discussions of the plea, the judge failed to mention the fact that it prohibited him from withdrawing his plea (the written statement, which did contain the fact, was read to him at another time). When the judge ruled that he could not lower the sentence, Dominguez appealed. He argued that the judge's failure to tell him that he would be unable to withdraw his appeal was a "plain error" under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52 and therefore required reversal. The prosecutors countered that, in order to show that the judge had made a "plain error" Dominguez would need to show not just that he had made a mistake but also that it was reasonably likely that, without the error, Dominguez would not have pled guilty. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, siding with Dominguez to reverse the decision.

Question

In order to show that a judge's mistake is a reversible "plain error" under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, must a defendant show that it is reasonably likely he would not have pled guilty without the mistake?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the judge's error most likely had no effect on Dominguez's decision to plead guilty, because he had already confessed to the crime and had little chance of winning at trial. Under Rule 52, a plain error is an "error that affects substantial rights." Because the error did not harm Dominguez - he would likely have pled guilty anyway - it was not a reversible plain error. Justice David H. Souter, writing for 8 members of the Court (Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate opinion concurring in judgment), wrote, "The point of the question is not to second- guess a defendant's actual decision... The point, rather, is to enquire whether the omitted warning would have made the difference required by the standard of reasonable probability; it is hard to see here how the warning could have had an effect on Dominguez's assessment of his strategic position."

United States v. Ruiz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-595

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ruiz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

536 U.S. 622 (2002)

Argued

Wednesday, April 24, 2002

Decided

Monday, June 24, 2002

Advocates

Steven F. Hubachek (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

After immigration agents found 30 kilograms of marijuana in Angela Ruiz's luggage, federal prosecutors offered her a "fast track" plea bargain in which she would waive indictment, trial, and an appeal in exchange for a reduced sentence recommendation. The prosecutors' offer requires that the defendant waive the right to receive impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses, as well as information supporting any affirmative defense she raises if the case goes to trial. When Ruiz rejected the waiver, the prosecutors withdrew their offer, indicted her for unlawful drug possession, and she pleaded guilty. At sentencing, Ruiz asked the judge to grant her the same reduced sentence that the Government would have recommended had she accepted the plea bargain. The Government opposed her request, and the District Court denied it. In vacating the sentence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Constitution prohibits defendants from waiving their right to certain impeachment information.

Question

Do the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require federal prosecutors, before entering into a binding plea agreement with a criminal defendant, to disclose impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that the Constitution does not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant. Although the Fifth and Sixth Amendments provide that defendants have the right to receive exculpatory impeachment material from prosecutors, the Court reasoned that a criminal defendant's guilty plea under the plea agreement, with its accompanying waiver of constitutional rights, could have been accepted as knowing and voluntary despite any misapprehension by Ruiz concerning the specific extent or nature of the impeachment evidence. Furthermore, Justice Breyer noted that requiring disclosure of the evidence would improperly force the Government to engage in substantial trial preparation prior to plea bargaining.

Bousley v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-8516

Petitioner

Bousley

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

523 U.S. 614 (1998)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1998

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1998

Advocates

L. Marshall Smith (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Michael R. Dreeben (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent, on behalf of the United States)

Thomas C. Walsh (Argued the cause, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, in support of the judgment)

Facts of the Case

In 1990, Kenneth Eugene Bousley pleaded guilty to "using" a firearm "during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime," in violation of 18 USC section 924(c)(1). Ultimately, Bousley sough habeas relief, claiming his guilty plea lacked a factual basis because a connection between the firearms, located in the bedroom, and the location where the drug trafficking occurred, in the garage, was not shown in either the evidence or the plea. Dismissing the petition, the District Court found that a factual basis for the plea existed because the guns were in close proximity to the drugs and were readily accessible. In affirming, the Court of Appeals rejected Bousley's argument, among others, that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was misinformed about the elements of a section 924(c)(1) offense.

Question

May defendants who pleaded guilty to "using" a firearm in violation of 18 USC section 924(c)(1) contest the validity of their convictions by claiming that their guilty pleas were not knowing and intelligent because they were misinformed by the District Court as to the nature of the charged crime?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Bousley, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that, although Bousley's claim was procedurally defaulted, Bousley may be entitled to a hearing on the merits of it if he makes the necessary showing to relieve the default. The Court's opinion made Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), which held that section 924(c)(1)'s "use" element requires the Government to show "active employment of the firearm," retroactive. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Bousley need demonstrate no more than that he did not "use" a firearm as defined in Bailey to be entitled to have his defaulted claim of an unintelligent plea considered on its merits.

Godinez, Warden v. Moran

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-725

Petitioner

Godinez, Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moran

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 389 (1993)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1993

Decided

Thursday, June 24, 1993

Advocates

Cal J. Potter, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

David F. Sarnowski (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Amy L. Wax (as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Godinez, Warden, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Parke, Warden v. Raley

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-719

Petitioner

Parke, Warden

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Raley

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 20 (1992)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, December 1, 1992

Advocates

J. Gregory Clare (on behalf of the Respondent)

John F. Manning (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner)

Ian G. Sonego (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Parke, Warden, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Hill v. Lockhart

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1103

Petitioner

Hill

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lockhart

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

474 U.S. 52 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 7, 1985

Decided

Monday, November 18, 1985

Advocates

John Steven Clark (on behalf of the Respondent)

Jack T. Lassiter (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Lockhart, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Thigpen v. Roberts

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1330

Petitioner

Thigpen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roberts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 27 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 23, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 27, 1984

Advocates

Rhesa H. Barksdale (as amicus curiae in support of judgment below)

William S. Boyd, III (on behalf of the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Roberts, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Mabry v. Johnson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-328

Petitioner

Mabry

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 504 (1984)

Argued

Monday, April 16, 1984

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1984

Advocates

John Steven Clark (on behalf of the petitioner)

Richard Quiggle (appointed by this Court)

Jerrold J. Ganzfried (on behalf of the U.S. as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mabry, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Marshall v. Lonberger

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-420

Petitioner

Marshall

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lonberger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 422 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, October 5, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, February 22, 1983

Advocates

John Czarnecki (on behalf of the Respondent)

Richard David Drake (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Marshall, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Goodwin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2195

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Goodwin

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 368 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, April 21, 1982

Decided

Friday, June 18, 1982

Advocates

Paul W. Spence (on behalf of the Respondent)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Corbitt v. New Jersey

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-5903

Appellee

New Jersey

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Corbitt

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

439 U.S. 212 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, October 3, 1978

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Trial By Jury

None

Bordenkircher v. Hayes

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:11 +0000

Location

Kentucky Penitentiary

266 Water St. Eddyville 42038

Eddyville 42038

United States

37° 2' 55.1148" N, 88° 4' 41.0268" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1334

Petitioner

Bordenkircher

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hayes

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

434 U.S. 357 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, November 9, 1977

Decided

Wednesday, January 18, 1978

Advocates

Robert L. Chenoweth (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

J. Vincent Aprile, II (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Paul Lewis Hayes was charged with forgery, an offense which carried a two-to- ten-year prison sentence. During plea negotiations, the prosecutor offered to pursue a five year sentence if Hayes would plead guilty. However, the prosecutor also stated that he would seek an indictment under the Kentucky Habitual Crime Act if the defendant did not register this plea. (Hayes had two prior felony convictions on his record.) If found guilty under this law, Hayes would be imprisoned for life. Hayes did not plead guilty and the prosecutor followed through on his promise.

Question

Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibit state prosecutors from carrying out a threat made during plea negotiations to re-indict the accused on more serious charges if he does not plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bordenkircher, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

No. The Court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated in this case. Justice Stewart spent some time describing the important role that plea bargaining plays in the nation's legal system, a role that has been accepted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Blackledge v. Allison (1977) and Brady v. United States (1970). This acceptance, in turn, implies that the prosecutor has a legitimate interest in persuading a defendant to relinquish his or her right to plead not guilty. Threatening a stiffer sentence is permissible and part of "any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas," Stewart declared.

Blackledge v. Allison

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1693

Petitioner

Blackledge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Allison

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

431 U.S. 63 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1977

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Allison, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Henderson v. Morgan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1529

Petitioner

Henderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Morgan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 637 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1976

Decided

Thursday, June 17, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Morgan, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Lefkowitz v. Newsome

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1627

Petitioner

Lefkowitz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Newsome

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 283 (1975)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, February 19, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Newsome, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Blackledge v. Perry

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1660

Petitioner

Blackledge

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Perry

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 21 (1974)

Argued

Tuesday, February 19, 1974

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Perry, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Tollett v. Henderson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-95

Petitioner

Tollett

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Henderson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

411 U.S. 258 (1973)

Argued

Tuesday, February 20, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1973

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Tollett, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Dukes v. Warden

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-5172

Petitioner

Dukes

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Warden

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 250 (1972)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Warden, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Santobello v. New York

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-98

Petitioner

Santobello

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 257 (1971)

Argued

Monday, November 15, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Santobello, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Mcmann v. Richardson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

153

Petitioner

Mcmann

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Richardson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 759 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1970

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mcmann, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Brady v. U. S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

270

Petitioner

Brady

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U. S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 742 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, November 18, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for U. S., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

Parker v. North Carolina

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

268

Petitioner

Parker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 790 (1970)

Argued

Monday, November 17, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 4, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for North Carolina, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

North Carolina v. Alford

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Alford

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

North Carolina

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

400 U.S. 25 (1970)

Argued

Monday, November 17, 1969

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 14, 1970

Decided

Monday, November 23, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for North Carolina, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Boykin v. Alabama

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

642

Petitioner

Boykin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 238 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, March 4, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Boykin, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Mccarthy v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mccarthy

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 459 (1969)

Argued

Monday, December 9, 1968

Decided

Wednesday, April 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mccarthy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Machibroda v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Machibroda

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

368 U.S. 487 (1962)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 1961

Decided

Monday, February 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Machibroda, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

Split Vote

None