|
|
Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1 (1981)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1 (1981)
Duckworth v. Serrano No. 82041 Decided October 19, 1981 454 U.S. 1
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent, whose Indiana state court conviction for murder was affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court, unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus relief in a Federal District Court. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, respondent claimed for the first time that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel, on the basis of a prosecution witness’ testimony at the state trial that she had been represented on a traffic charge by the law firm of respondent’s attorney and that she had asked respondent’s attorney to represent her on a pending robbery charge, unrelated to the murder. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, concluding that there was a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective representation, and that, "in view of the clear violation" of respondent’s rights and "in the interest of judicial economy," there was no reason to await the state court’s initial consideration of the issue.
Held: The Court of Appeals was obligated to dismiss respondent’s petition because obvious constitutional errors, no less than obscure transgressions, are subject to the well-settled requirement, codified in the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c), that a state prisoner must normally exhaust state remedies before a writ of habeas corpus can be granted by the federal courts. Creating an exception to the exhaustion requirement for "clear violations" would not promote judicial economy, but rather would invite habeas petitioners to make a practice of first seeking relief on these grounds in federal courts.
Certiorari granted; 654 F.2d 725, reversed and remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1 (1981) in 454 U.S. 1 454 U.S. 2. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NFEI73IZXF1TFL5.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1 (1981), in 454 U.S. 1, page 454 U.S. 2. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NFEI73IZXF1TFL5.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1 (1981). cited in 1981, 454 U.S. 1, pp.454 U.S. 2. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NFEI73IZXF1TFL5.
|