Withrow v. Williams | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued November 3, 1992 Decided April 21, 1993 | |
Full case name | Pamela Withrow, Petitioner v. Robert Allen Williams, Jr. |
Citations | 507 U.S. 680 (more) 113 S. Ct. 1745; 123 L. Ed. 2d 407; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 2980; 61 U.S.L.W. 4352; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2893; 93 Daily Journal DAR 4974; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 191 |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Souter, joined by unanimous (part III); White, Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy (parts I, II, IV) |
Concur/dissent | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist |
Concur/dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Fifth Amendment Miranda v. Arizona arguments can be raised again in federal habeas corpus proceedings, even if a criminal defendant had a fair chance to argue those claims in state court.[1] The Court rejected the state's argument that Stone v. Powell, a case holding the opposite in the context of Fourth Amendment claims on habeas review, applied in Williams' case.[2]
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search