Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-6497.ZS.html
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 15:04:25
Document Index: 264179663

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 848', '§ 2254', '§2255', '§2254', '§848', '§2251', '§848']

McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994).
McFarland v. Scott (93-6497), 512 U.S. 849 (1994). Syllabus Dissent[ Thomas ]Opinion[ Blackmun ]Other[ O'Connor ]HTML versionWordPerfect versionHTML versionWordPerfect versionHTML versionWordPerfect versionHTML versionWordPerfect version
No. 93-6497. Argued March 29, 1994 -- Decided June 30, 1994
Title 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(4)(B) entitles capital defendants to qualified legal representation in any "post conviction proceeding" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or §2255, sections of the federal habeas corpus statute. Having failed to obtain a modification of his impending execution date in Texas state court, petitioner McFarland commenced this action in the Federal District Court by filing a pro se motion stating that he wished to challenge his conviction and death sentence under §2254, requesting the appointment of counsel under §848(q)(4)(B), and seeking a stay of execution to give that counsel time to prepare and file a habeas petition. The court denied the motion, concluding that because no "post conviction proceeding" had been initiated, McFarland was not entitled to counsel and the court lacked jurisdiction to issue a stay. In denying his subsequent stay application, the Court of Appeals noted that §2251 authorizes a federal judge, before whom a "habeas corpus proceeding is pending," to stay a state action, but held that no federal proceeding was pending because a motion for stay and for appointed counsel was not the equivalent of a habeas petition. Held: A capital defendant need not file a formal habeas corpus petition in order to invoke his right to counsel under §848(q)(4)(B) and to establish a federal court's jurisdiction to enter a stay of execution. Pp. 4-10.
Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., joined. Supreme Court Toolbox