Murray v. Giarratano
| Murray v. Giarratano | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Holding | |
| Neither the Eighth Amendment nor the Due Process Clause requires States to appoint counsel for indigent death row inmates seeking state postconviction relief. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Kennedy (in judgment), joined by O'Connor |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
Murray v. Giarratano,
Background
The case originated in a
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court voted 5–4 to reverse the en banc Fourth Circuit on the grounds that, under the circumstances of the case, Virginia had taken adequate steps to make counsel available to indigent death row inmates. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment only, stating that
While Virginia has not adopted procedures for securing representation that are as far reaching and effective as those available in other States, no prisoner on death row in Virginia has been unable to obtain counsel to represent him in postconviction proceedings, and Virginia's prison system is staffed with institutional lawyers to assist in preparing petitions for postconviction relief. I am not prepared to say that this scheme violates the Constitution.[2]
Because all four dissenting justices argued that there was a right to government-appointed counsel in capital postconviction proceedings, and because Kennedy's concurrence also endorsed the existence of this right, some legal commentators have argued that Giarratano did not rule that there was no right to counsel in such proceedings. For example, Eric M. Freedman states that "[t]o read Giarratano as holding that states have no obligation to provide postconviction counsel to death row inmates is to misread it. On the contrary, five, and perhaps six, Justices plainly believed that states do have such an obligation."[2]
References
- ISSN 0094-5617.
- ^ a b c Freedman, Eric (2006-01-01). "Giarratano is a Scarecrow: The Right to Counsel in State Capital Postconviction Proceedings". Cornell Law Review. 91: 1079.
External links
- Text of Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1 (1989) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Library of Congress
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |