Document: 464 U.S. 377 104 S.Ct. 752 78 L.Ed.2d 541 James C. WOODARD, Secretary of Corrections North Carolina, et al.v.James W. HUTCHINS.No. A-557. Jan. 13, 1984. PER CURIAM. 1 This matter comes to the Court on application State Carolina vacate an order a single Circuit Judge United States Appeals for Fourth Circuit, granting, at 12:05 a.m. today, respondent's stay execution. Phillips had jurisdiction consider pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1651; accordingly, this has State's application. A transcript Phillips' opinion is before Court. The execution entered January 1984, by Phillips, was presented Chief Justice and him referred 2 said granted. 3 It so ordered. 4 POWELL, joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST O'CONNOR, JJ., concurring. 5 Unlike Justices WHITE STEVENS, I do not believe that under circumstances case District obligated rule successive petition writ habeas corpus. 6 another capital in which last minute new corpus relief have been filed with no explanation as why claims were raised earlier or they all one petition. example abuse writ.1 7 On September 21, 1979, jury convicted Hutchins two counts first degree murder count second degree. He sentenced death. denied he deliberately murdered three policemen. After exhausting his state remedies, 24, 1982, federal Western Carolina. after evidentiary hearing, affirmed full opinion. 4, certiorari seeking review decision. 8 petition: (i) Sixth Amendment right effective assistance counsel because breakdown communications court-appointed counsel; (ii) trial court abused its discretion denying defense counsel's motion continuance; and, (iii) imposition death penalty unconstitutional Eighth prohibits punishment person who "mentally emotionally distressed" time crime. Court, careful consideration, 11, 1065, 750, 79 207. That same day began anew quest postconviction relief, raising previously raised. 9 both Supreme Hutchins' post-conviction 12, 1984.2 claims: evidence alleged insanity crime; currently insane; selection process unconstitutional. offers having failed raise these corpus, see none. Successive petitions withheld from prior constitute writ.3 10 2244 makes clear power courts eliminate unnecessary burden placed them applications prisoners. provides: 11 (b) When hearing merits . [a judge corpus], subsequent behalf such need be entertained justice unless court, justice, satisfied applicant newly asserted ground otherwise writ. 12 See also Rule 9(b), Rules Governing 2254 Cases Courts. 13 2254(b) intended eliminate. All could should support claim insane crime report forensic psychiatrist prepared 2, 1984 psychiatric examination. Hutchins, some four years ago, frequently during intervening years, does explain examination conducted earlier.4 recent development. In light crime, assertion would implausible. Finally, include challenge 14 pattern seems developing cases multiple ago are brought forward—often piecemeal fashion—only date set becomes imminent. Federal continue tolerate—even cases—this type 15 REHNQUIST, whom O'CONNOR joins, 16 our brothers we every 11th hour it denies stay. But assuming Witherspoon aspect granting necessarily us, find nothing material respondent show particular jurors sat "less than neutral respect guilt." v. Illinois, 391 510, 520 n. 18, 88 1770, 1776 20 776 (1968). Absent showing, there can fair impartial 6th 14th Amendments, subject cruel unusual 8th Amendments. 17 BRENNAN, dissenting. 18 Court's decision simply incomprehensible. granted early morning, a.m., Dickson Circuit. correctly decided necessary preserve substantial issue condemned prisoner, Hutchins. issue—whether exclusion cause potential unequivocally opposed resulted biased guilt phase proceedings against Hutchins—is conflict between judges remains undecided 19 As recognizes, over case.* Late yesterday, Woodrow Jones. Jones, however, acted only deny application, leaving limbo taking action, Jones apparently went home. result, when approached faced scheduled take place within hours, appended copy left knowing then pending execution, issued noted above. STEVENS note, properly allow act addition, 2241, appropriate treat papers independent refer grant 2251 Writs Act, 1651. 21 Despite holding stay, inexplicably concluded improperly exercised jurisdiction. lower vacated upon showing issuance discretion. Far being discretion, action eminently reasonable correct. Not least other own circuit ruled favorably question, Avery Hamilton, --- F.Supp. ----, No. C-C-81-48 (WD NC 1984), Arkansas reached similar conclusion, Grigsby Mabry, 569 1273 (ED Ark. 1983), appeal pending, 83-2113 (CA8 Aug. 8, but itself recognized validity claim. See, e.g., 516-518, 1774-1775, (1968); Bumper 543, 545, nn. 5-6, 1788, 1790, 797 Winick, Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices Capital Cases: An Empirical Study Constitutional Analysis, 81 Mich.L.Rev. (1982). 22 argues pursue remedies yesterday's While obviously basis vacation any event literal impossibility given 6:00 p.m. deadline Indeed, constraints imposed deliberations deadline, most disturbing indefensible—and unexplained rush judgment. life stake, produces result surely insensitive, if ghoulish. 23 dissent. 24 25 We did pass until performs duty acts Until addressed below held writ, leave effect. orderly procedure us. us opaque vacating very close considered reason merits. now accept per se rule. 26 MARSHALL, 27 At 12:30 Less issued, attorneys Attorney General's Office three-and-a-half-page, hand-written Without stay—indeed without waiting receive final draft memorandum opinion—the motion, proceed warrant expires evening. Given posture dire consequences error, haste outrageous. explanation, takes position somehow erred execution.1 BRENNAN shown, ante, 382, prudent exercise authority taken serious dealing considerable uncertainty. What incredible about five Members voted even reading opinion2 fully considering present time, record case.3 candor, matter, found Chambers. 29 Ironically, zealous efforts authorize may futile. statute requires must whenever vacated.4 N.C.Gen.Stat. 15-194. Since indisputably vacates law seem require set.5 Of course, meaning provision question law, therefore courts. trust, responsible officials will whether valid proceeds 30 preferable stated expressly entertain constituted Nevertheless, abuse. Order procedural here. There affirmative withheld. through various phases case, made eve date. reviewed seven courts, including more judges. * MARSHALL points out, reimpose Carolina's once competent jurisdiction, terminated. noted, holds thus appears applicable postponed. Much involves argument procedurally barred juror-bias court. majority agrees threshold insubstantial. Early received telephone short summary decision, Clerk's office transcribed. brief, preliminary statement, "I say roughly foregoing file tomorrow." addition course response supplemental parties. Although briefs litigation, neither party complete voir dire, deprivation constitutional rights allegedly took place. relevant reads: "Whenever judicial tribunal expired terminated, shall superior fix original sentence. less 60 days nor 90 hearing." 15-194 (emphasis added). majority's curiam clearly concludes supra, note 1. Common decency demands postponement, especially since, already notified reprieve Phillips. 15-193.

Category: 0