skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query prison or prisoner returned 193 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
1000 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
963 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Opinion]
935 IN RE NEAGLE
[Opinion]
919 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Dissent]
889 ABLEMAN V. BOOTH
[Opinion]
830 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Opinion]
787 POWELL V. ALABAMA
[Opinion]
787 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Concurrence]
763 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Opinion]
763 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Opinion]
735 JONES V. BOCK
[Syllabus]
735 WILSON V. SEITER
[Opinion]
735 HELLING V. MCKINNEY
[Opinion]
735 EX PARTE MILLIGAN
[Opinion]
735 TWINING V. STATE
[Opinion]
707 BARBER V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
707 POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
707 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
707 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Dissent]
673 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Syllabus]
673 EX PARTE MILLIGAN
[Syllabus]
673 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Dissent]
673 HELLING V. MCKINNEY
[Dissent]
636 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
636 ALABAMA V. BOZEMAN
[Syllabus]
The literal language of Art. IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers-which provides that a State that obtains a prisoner for trial must try him within 120 days of his arrival, Art. IV(c), and if it returns him to his original place of imprisonment prior to that trial, charges "shall" be dismissed with prejudice, Art. IV(e)-bars further criminal proceedings when a defendant is returned to the original place of imprisonment before trial.
636 WILKINSON V. DOTSON
[Syllabus]
636 PORTER V. NUSSLE
[Syllabus]
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
636
[Syllabus]
636 BAZE V. REES
[Syllabus]
636 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Concurrence]
636 EX PARTE MILLIGAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
636 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
636 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
596
[Syllabus]
596 IN RE NEAGLE
[Dissent]
596 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
596 EX PARTE QUIRIN
[Opinion]
550
[Syllabus]
550 WOODFORD V. NGO
[Syllabus]
550 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
550 BETTS V. BRADY
[Dissent]
550 WHITLEY V. ALBERS
[Dissent]
550 WHITLEY V. ALBERS
[Opinion]
492 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
492 NEW YORK V. HILL
[Syllabus]
Does a defendant's express agreement to a trial date beyond the 180-day period required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers constitute a waiver of his right to trial within such period?
492
[Syllabus]
492 EVANS V. CHAVIS
[Syllabus]
492 SLACK V. MCDANIEL
[Syllabus]
If a person's petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exhaust his state remedies and refiles the 2254 petition, are claims included within that petition that were not included within his initial 2254 filing ""second or successive"" habeas applications?
492 WOODFORD V. GARCEAU
[Syllabus]
For purposes of applying the rule in Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, a case does not become "pending" until an actual application for habeas relief is filed in federal court; respondent's application is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 because it was not filed until after AEDPA's effective date.
492 PLILER V. FORD
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the dismissal of a "mixed" habeas corpus petition is improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner with respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling? (2) Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeas petition, where the first habeas petition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer proceeding?
492 WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
492
[Syllabus]
492 CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995).
[Syllabus]
492 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Dissent]
492 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concurrence]
492 BENTON V. MARYLAND
[Concurrence]
492 KENTUCKY V. DENNISON
[Opinion]
492 PATTON V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
492 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
492 BETTS V. BRADY
[Opinion]
424 CAREY V. SAFFOLD
[Syllabus]
As used in 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2), which tolls the limitations period for filing federal habeas petitions while a petition for state collateral relief is "pending," the term "pending" covers the time between a lower state court's decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court; that rule applies to California's collateral review system; and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the question whether respondent's state petition was timely filed.
424
[Syllabus]
424 CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)
[Syllabus]
424 MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL
[Syllabus]
The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
424 STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998)
[Syllabus]
424 MUNAF V.GEREN
[Syllabus]
424 RUMSFELD V. PADILLA
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and war-like acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority? (2) Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition?
424
[Syllabus]
424 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concurrence]
424 WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Opinion]
424 CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA
[Dissent]
424 HELLING V. MCKINNEY
[Syllabus]
424 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Syllabus]
424 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
424 WILSON V. SEITER
[Syllabus]
424 SCHICK V. REED
[Dissent]
424 GREGG V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
424 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
424 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Opinion]
424 IN RE NEAGLE
[Syllabus]
424 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
335
[Syllabus]
335 BALDWIN V. REESE
[Syllabus]
By statute and this Court's caselaw, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. This Court had held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the state's highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one. Does a state prisoner alert the State's highest court that he is raising a federal claim when -- in that court--he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis?
335 GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995).
[Syllabus]
335 EDWARDS V. CARPENTER
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal habeas court is barred from considering an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as "" cause"" for the procedural default of another habeas claim when the ineffective-assistance claim is itself procedurally defaulted."
335 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
335 LAWRENCE V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
335 SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
335 EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
[Syllabus]
335 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
335 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
335 UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK
[Syllabus]
335 WILKINSON V. AUSTIN
[Syllabus]
335 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
335 O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL
[Syllabus]
335 MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON
[Syllabus]
335 WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
335 LOPEZ V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
335 LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
335 HAYWOOD V. DROWN
[Syllabus]
335 BOOTH V. CHURNER
[Syllabus]
Under 42 U. S. C. §1997e(a), an inmate seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing the inmate's complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not make specific provision for monetary relief.
335 WALKER V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
335 MARTIN V. HADIX
[Syllabus]
335 RASUL V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?
335 KILBOURN V. THOMPSON
[Opinion]
335 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Opinion]
335 TERRY V. OHIO
[Opinion]
335 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
335 EX PARTE SIEBOLD
[Opinion]
335 CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
335 SCHICK V. REED
[Opinion]
335 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Syllabus]
335 HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
335 RENO V. ACLU
[Opinion]
335 PULLEY V. HARRIS
[Opinion]
335 BATSON V. KENTUCKY
[Dissent]
335 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
335 YICK WO V. HOPKINS
[Syllabus]
335 TWINING V. STATE
[Dissent]
335 GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE
[Concurrence]
212 LOCKYER V. ANDRADE
[Syllabus]
The Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal's decision affirming Andrade's sentence for a "third strike" conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court's clearly established law within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
212 HARBISON V. BELL
[Syllabus]
212 SHAW V. MURPHY
[Syllabus]
Inmates do not possess a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates that enhances the protections otherwise available under Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78.
212 CUTTER V. WILKINSON
[Syllabus]
212 LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996)
[Syllabus]
212 CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998)
[Syllabus]
212 SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997)
[Syllabus]
212 SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
[Syllabus]
212 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
212 RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997).
[Syllabus]
212 HOPE V. PELZER
[Syllabus]
Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
212 BECKER V. MONTGOMERY
[Syllabus]
When a party files a timely notice of appeal in federal district court, the failure to sign the notice does not require the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal.
212 O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997).
[Syllabus]
212
[Syllabus]
212
[Syllabus]
212
[Syllabus]
212 WOOD V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
212 UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998)
[Syllabus]
212 BANKS V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
212 SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
[Syllabus]
212 LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997)
[Syllabus]
212 LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997)
[Syllabus]
212 FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996).
[Syllabus]
212 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the district court properly imposed a ''tail "" of supervised release following incarceration after revoking Petitioner' s initial term of supervised release, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution."
212 CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER
[Syllabus]
212 CLAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
For the purpose of starting the clock on the 1-year limitation period for federal prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2255, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a certiorari petition contesting the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction.
212 GONZALEZ V. CROSBY
[Syllabus]
212 MAYLE V. FELIX
[Syllabus]
212 ROELL V. WITHROW
[Syllabus]
When a district court, upon the plaintiff's written consent, refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. 636©, and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
212 OVERTON V. BAZZETTA
[Syllabus]
In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
212 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO
[Syllabus]
The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
212 CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)
[Syllabus]
212 UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal criminal defendant's term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.
212 COKER V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
212 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Opinion]
212 GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE
[Concurrence]
212 UNITED STATES V. ROSS
[Opinion]
212 BAKER V. CARR
[Opinion]
212 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
212 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
212 WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Dissent]
212 JUREK V. TEXAS
[Opinion]
212 JOHNSON V. ZERBST
[Opinion]
212 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
212 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
212 POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS
[Syllabus]
212 MAXWELL V. DOW
[Opinion]
212 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
212 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Syllabus]
212 CRIST V. BRETZ
[Dissent]
212 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Opinion]
212 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
212 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Syllabus]
212 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
212 JOHNSON V. ZERBST
[Syllabus]
212 UNITED STATES V. QUARLES
[Opinion]
212 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Concurrence]
212 WHITLEY V. ALBERS
[Syllabus]
212 FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
212 MARYLAND V. CRAIG
[Opinion]
212 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Opinion]
212 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
212 LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER
[Dissent]
212 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
212 TEXAS V. JOHNSON
[Dissent]
212 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
212 GOSS V. LOPEZ
[Opinion]
212 RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
212 EX PARTE QUIRIN
[Syllabus]
212 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
212 EX PARTE GROSSMAN
[Syllabus]
212 MINCEY V. ARIZONA
[Concurrence]
212 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Opinion]
212 MARTIN V. WILKS
[Dissent]
212 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
212 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Opinion]
212 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
212 PAUL V. DAVIS
[Opinion]
212 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
212 CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA
[Opinion]
212 WILSON V. SEITER
[Concurrence]
212 LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER
[Opinion]
212 PULLEY V. HARRIS
[Syllabus]
212 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Dissent]
212 EX PARTE GROSSMAN
[Opinion]
212 NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
212 OHIO V. ROBERTS
[Opinion]
212 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
212 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Concurrence]
212 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
212 MAPP V. OHIO
[Dissent]
212 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
212 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
212 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Opinion]
212 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
212 JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
[Dissent]
212 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
212 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Opinion]
212 ********
[Dissent]
212 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Concurrence]
212 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
212 ABLEMAN V. BOOTH
[Syllabus]
212 UNITED STATES V. BROWN
[Opinion]
212 IN RE DEBS
[Opinion]
212 BETTS V. BRADY
[Syllabus]
212 PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD
[Opinion]
212 ASHE V. SWENSON
[Concurrence]
212 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
212 EX PARTE SIEBOLD
[Syllabus]
212 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[Opinion]
212 RHODE ISLAND V. INNIS
[Dissent]
212 EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA
[Concurrence]
212 MAPP V. OHIO
[Concurrence]
1000 PORTER V. NUSSLE
[Syllabus]
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
956
[Syllabus]
853 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
832 WILKINSON V. AUSTIN
[Syllabus]
824 JONES V. BOCK
[Syllabus]
770 WOODFORD V. NGO
[Syllabus]
760 BARBER V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
758
[Syllabus]
727 SHAW V. MURPHY
[Syllabus]
Inmates do not possess a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates that enhances the protections otherwise available under Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78.
712 ALABAMA V. BOZEMAN
[Syllabus]
The literal language of Art. IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers-which provides that a State that obtains a prisoner for trial must try him within 120 days of his arrival, Art. IV(c), and if it returns him to his original place of imprisonment prior to that trial, charges "shall" be dismissed with prejudice, Art. IV(e)-bars further criminal proceedings when a defendant is returned to the original place of imprisonment before trial.
685
[Syllabus]
679 MCKUNE V. LILE
[Syllabus]
The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
654 OVERTON V. BAZZETTA
[Syllabus]
In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
654
[Syllabus]
652 WILKINSON V. DOTSON
[Syllabus]
617 RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997).
[Syllabus]
615
[Syllabus]
597 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
595 BOOTH V. CHURNER
[Syllabus]
Under 42 U. S. C. §1997e(a), an inmate seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing the inmate's complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not make specific provision for monetary relief.
555 MARTIN V. HADIX
[Syllabus]
555 WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
543 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the district court properly imposed a ''tail "" of supervised release following incarceration after revoking Petitioner' s initial term of supervised release, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution."
543 SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
[Syllabus]
543 UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal criminal defendant's term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.
543 LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997)
[Syllabus]
512
[Syllabus]
512 LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996)
[Syllabus]
493 JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
473 EVANS V. CHAVIS
[Syllabus]
473 CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995).
[Syllabus]
473 HOPE V. PELZER
[Syllabus]
Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
473 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
450 EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
[Syllabus]
450 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
450 GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995).
[Syllabus]
450 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
427 BAZE V. REES
[Syllabus]
427 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
427 CUTTER V. WILKINSON
[Syllabus]
427 MUNAF V.GEREN
[Syllabus]
400
[Syllabus]
400 TAPIA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
369 MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998)
[Syllabus]
369 YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997).
[Syllabus]
369 MARYLAND V. SHATZER
[Syllabus]
369 LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S 322 (1996).
[Syllabus]
369 ALABAMA V. SHELTON
[Syllabus]
Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 40, a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged.
367
[Syllabus]
367 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
367 SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
367 WALKER V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
367 UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK
[Syllabus]
367 CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)
[Syllabus]
367 O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997).
[Syllabus]
330 MILLER V. FRENCH
[Syllabus]
The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
330 PLILER V. FORD
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the dismissal of a "mixed" habeas corpus petition is improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner with respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling? (2) Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeas petition, where the first habeas petition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer proceeding?
330 WOODFORD V. GARCEAU
[Syllabus]
For purposes of applying the rule in Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, a case does not become "pending" until an actual application for habeas relief is filed in federal court; respondent's application is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 because it was not filed until after AEDPA's effective date.
330 UNITED STATES V. GONZALES, 520 U.S. 1 (1997).
[Syllabus]
330
[Syllabus]
330 SLACK V. MCDANIEL
[Syllabus]
If a person's petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exhaust his state remedies and refiles the 2254 petition, are claims included within that petition that were not included within his initial 2254 filing ""second or successive"" habeas applications?
330 WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
330 NEW YORK V. HILL
[Syllabus]
Does a defendant's express agreement to a trial date beyond the 180-day period required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers constitute a waiver of his right to trial within such period?
330 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
285 LOCKYER V. ANDRADE
[Syllabus]
The Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal's decision affirming Andrade's sentence for a "third strike" conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court's clearly established law within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
285 KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996)
[Syllabus]
285 KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
285 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO
[Syllabus]
The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
285 BECKER V. MONTGOMERY
[Syllabus]
When a party files a timely notice of appeal in federal district court, the failure to sign the notice does not require the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal.
285
[Syllabus]
285 STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998)
[Syllabus]
285 MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL
[Syllabus]
The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
285 BANKS V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
285
[Syllabus]
285 SYKES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
285 RUMSFELD V. PADILLA
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and war-like acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority? (2) Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition?
285 ROELL V. WITHROW
[Syllabus]
When a district court, upon the plaintiff's written consent, refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. 636©, and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
285 GRAHAM V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
285 LOGAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
285 CAREY V. SAFFOLD
[Syllabus]
As used in 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2), which tolls the limitations period for filing federal habeas petitions while a petition for state collateral relief is "pending," the term "pending" covers the time between a lower state court's decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court; that rule applies to California's collateral review system; and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the question whether respondent's state petition was timely filed.
285 CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)
[Syllabus]
285 KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
225 RASUL V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?
225 KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997).
[Syllabus]
225
[Syllabus]
225 CHAMBERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
225 BALDWIN V. REESE
[Syllabus]
By statute and this Court's caselaw, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. This Court had held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the state's highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one. Does a state prisoner alert the State's highest court that he is raising a federal claim when -- in that court--he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis?
225 DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
225 EDWARDS V. CARPENTER
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal habeas court is barred from considering an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as "" cause"" for the procedural default of another habeas claim when the ineffective-assistance claim is itself procedurally defaulted."
225 GLOVER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
225 BROWN V. PAYTON
[Syllabus]
225 UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ
[Syllabus]
225 LAWRENCE V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
225 IRIZARRY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
225 UTTECHT V. BROWN
[Syllabus]
225 ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998)
[Syllabus]
225 UNITED STATES V. BOOKER
[Syllabus]
225 O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL
[Syllabus]
225 NELSON V. CAMPBELL
[Syllabus]
Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
225 PEPPER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
225 MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON
[Syllabus]
225 FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
225 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
225 LOPEZ V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
225 SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
225 LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
225
[Syllabus]
225 HAYWOOD V. DROWN
[Syllabus]
225 BEGAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
225 PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998)
[Syllabus]
225
[Syllabus]
225 SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
225 UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997)
[Syllabus]
225 ORTIZ V. JORDAN
[Syllabus]
142 UNITED STATES V. TINKLENBERG
[Syllabus]
142 LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997)
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142 UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN
[Syllabus]
142 ABBOTT V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 WHORTON V. BOCKTING
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142 CARR V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 RENO V. KORAY, 515 U.S. 39 (1995).
[Syllabus]
142 NEGUSIE V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
142 FLORES-FIGUEROA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
[Syllabus]
142 AYERS V. BELMONTES
[Syllabus]
142 SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997)
[Syllabus]
142 TURNER V. ROGERS
[Syllabus]
142 JAMES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 DV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997).
[Syllabus]
142 UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
142 HARRIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 GALL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 BERGHUIS V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
142 ALI V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
[Syllabus]
142 VERMONT V. BRILLON
[Syllabus]
142 EWING V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
142
[Syllabus]
142 BRADSHAW V. STUMPF
[Syllabus]
142 SMALL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 CENTRAL VA. COMMUNITY COLLEGE V. KATZ
[Syllabus]
142 BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996).
[Syllabus]
142 NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
142 IOWA V. TOVAR
[Syllabus]
142 ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
[Syllabus]
Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
142
[Syllabus]
142 PREMO V. MOORE
[Syllabus]
142 PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 ARIZONA V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
142 HARBISON V. BELL
[Syllabus]
142 RITA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998)
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142 COLLINS V. YOUNGBLOOD, 497 U.S. 37 (1990)
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142 MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998)
[Syllabus]
142 UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998)
[Syllabus]
142 LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142 BLOATE V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 RAMDASS V. ANGELONE
[Syllabus]
Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
142 WOOD V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
142 CASTILLO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
18 U.S.C. 924©(1) punishes with five years imprisonment whoever, during a federal crime of violence, ""uses or carries a firearm, . . . and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, ""with thirty years. The issues are (1) whether the firearm type is an element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge by a preponderance of evidence, and (2) whether equivocal ""legislative history"" overrides the doctrine of constitutional doubt set forth in Jones V. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), that a statute must be interpreted to avoid possible unconstitutionality under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
142
[Syllabus]
142 GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996).
[Syllabus]
142 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142 CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER
[Syllabus]
142 DEAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 CLAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
For the purpose of starting the clock on the 1-year limitation period for federal prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2255, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a certiorari petition contesting the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction.
142 SMITH V. DOE
[Syllabus]
Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
142 MV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
142 LEE V. KEMNA
[Syllabus]
Two Missouri procedural Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of the merits of petitioner's federal constitutional claim.
142 APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY
[Syllabus]
Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
142
[Syllabus]
142 TREST V. CAIN, 522 U.S. 87 (1997)
[Syllabus]
142 CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998)
[Syllabus]
142 SMITH V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure-- in which appellate counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues remains available to brief any issue the appellate court might identify--violated the Sixth Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it ruled that the asserted Anders violation required a new appeal, without testing the claimed Sixth Amendment error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),which prohibits the retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's wellsettled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?
142 VAN V. GOLDSTEIN
[Syllabus]
142 GONZALEZ V. CROSBY
[Syllabus]
142 BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS
[Syllabus]
142 MAYLE V. FELIX
[Syllabus]
142
[Syllabus]
142 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. SCHACHT, 524 U.S. 381 (1998)
[Syllabus]
142 CAREY V. MUSLADIN
[Syllabus]