|Kyles v. Whitley (93-7927), 514 U.S. 419 (1995). |
[ Stevens ]
[ Scalia ]
[ Souter ]
CURTIS LEE KYLES, PETITIONER v. JOHN
P. WHITLEY, WARDEN
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit
Our duty to administer justice occasionally requires busy judges to engage in a detailed review of the particular facts of a case, even though our labors may not provide posterity with a newly minted rule of law. The current popularity of capital punishment makes this "generalizable principle," post, at 5, especially important. Cf. Harris v. Alabama, 513 U. S. ___, ___, and n. 5 (1995) (slip op., at 5-6, and n. 5) (Stevens, J., dissenting). I wish such review were unnecessary, but I cannot agree that our position in the judicial hierarchy makes it inappropriate. Sometimes the performance of an unpleasant duty conveys a message more significant than even the most penetrating legal analysis.