Legal Document

481 U.S. 770 107 S.Ct. 2113 95 L.Ed.2d 724 Gary HILTON, Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison, et al., Petitionersv.Dana BRAUNSKILL. No. 86-108. Argued March 25, 1987. Decided May 26, Syllabus Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c) provides that, when a appeals federal-court decision granting writ habeas corpus to state prisoner, the petitioner shall be released from custody "unless court or justice judge rendering decision, Supreme Court, either otherwise order." 23(d) states that initial orders issued pursuant "govern review in and Court unless for special reasons shown . order modified, an independent respecting custody, enlargement surety made." Respondent, prisoner serving state-court sentence, filed petition District which found his constitutional rights had been violated at trial ordered "shall issue within 30 days" granted new trial. The subsequently denied petitioners' motion stay its pending appeal, basing denial on Third Circuit authority under Rules (d) federal deciding whether release successful could consider only risk would not appear subsequent proceedings, danger community, finding petitioners failed show such here. Appeals Court's releasing respondent. Held: In appeal district relief petitioner, courts are restricted considering petitioner's flight. history practice indicates has broad discretion conditioning judgment relief, court's same effect as order. Since proceedings civil nature, courts, State's should guided by traditional standards governing stays judgments—whether applicant made strong showing he is likely succeed merits; will irreparably injured absent stay; issuance substantially injure other parties interested proceeding; where public interest lies. Although creates presumption favoring correctness order, presumptions may overcome if so indicated factors, contemplate individualized judgments each case. Thus, consideration given factors possibility prisoner's flight; pose released; continuing rehabilitation final determination appeal; substantial appeal. Respondent's contention matters "traditional concern" community considered determining unpersuasive. Any strain federal-state relations arises jurisdiction comes about because itself, existence courts' refuse Nor there any merit respondent's staying dangerousness repugnant concept substantive due process. Pp. 774-779. Vacated remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion WHITE, POWELL, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., dissenting opinion, BRENNAN BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. ----. John G. Holl, Morristown, N.J., petitioners. Mark H. Friedman, East Orange, Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 Government corpus, made."1 this case, we asked decide what these provisions allow relief. 2 January 1981, respondent Dana Braunskill was convicted Superior Jersey, Law Division, sexual assault unlawful possession weapon, violation N.J.Stat.Ann. §§ 2C:14-2, 2C:39-5(d) (West 1982 Supp.1986-1987), sentenced eight years' imprisonment. Division affirmed convictions, review. 3 Respondent then, 1985, United States Jersey. Finding Sixth Amendment trial, "a days afford [respondent] trial." 629 F.Supp. 511, 526 (1986). Petitioners moved Relying Carter v. Rafferty, 781 F.2d 993, 997 (CA3 1986), determined it grant request they demonstrated proceedings. make motion. 4 then Circuit, seeking dated 27, 1986. We certiorari Appeals' stay, 479 881, 268, 93 245 (1986), now vacate remand case Appeals.2 5 supra, case,3 held flight, but community. observed who received entitled custody. Moreover, reasoned, principal interests those ensuring appearance returning prevails award To conclude otherwise, determined, result intrusion into concern. 6 do believe thought. undoubtedly cases,4 appellate judge, "otherwise orders." entered 23(c), enlarges refuses enlarge him, "for shown." think resort helpful illuminating generality terms (d). 7 practice, reflected decisions authorized, 28 U.S.C. § 2243, dispose "as law require." construing 2243 predecessors, repeatedly stated delay provide opportunity correct court. See, e.g., Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 549, 81 735, 744, 760 (1961); Dowd ex rel. Cook, 340 206, 210, 71 262, 264, L.Ed. 215 (1951); re Bonner, 151 242, 261-262, 14 323, 327, 38 149 (1894). Even 1894, 34 mandatory, see n. 4, interpreted predecessor vesting "with largest power control direct form cases brought up before corpus." Id., 261, 327. little sense allowed fashioning were evaporate suddenly turns stayed 23 apparently required strange result, language current permits more sensible interpretation. 8 instances Member confronted with question prevailing disposition certiorari, our approach follow general judgment. See Tate Rose, 466 1301, 104 2186, 80 805 (1984) (O'CONNOR, chambers); cf. Sumner Mata, 446 1302, 100 1630, 64 216 (1980) (REHNQUIST, chambers). This reflects common-sense notion Our have consistently recognized nature. Browder Director, Illinois Dept. Corrections, 434 257, 269, 98 556, 563, 54 521 (1978).5 It therefore logical also guide must conclusion quite consistent contained 9 Different govern Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 62(c); App.Proc. 8(a). Under both Rules, however, regulating generally same: (1) (2) (3) (4) Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Assn. FPC, U.S.App.D.C. 106, 110, 259 921, 925 (1958); Washington Metropolitan Area Comm'n Holiday Tours, Inc., 182 220, 221-222, 559 841, 842-844 (1977); Garcia-Mir Meese, 1450, 1453 (CA11 1986); Accident Fund Baerwaldt, 579 724, 725 (WD Mich. 1984)s 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Practice 2904 (1973). 10 For stated, making itself traditionally There favor without surety, tip balance against it. A reviewing accord directs continues presumption, too, indicate. construction here adopt accords considerably latitude than thought appropriate formula cannot reduced set rigid rules. 993 agreed flight taken consideration, concur determination. establishes released, take factor him. considered; strongest remaining portion sentence served long, weakest served. 12 always substantial, mentioned preceding paragraph weakest. depend large extent upon prospects success Where likelihood where, failing can nonetheless demonstrate merits, continued permissible second fourth analysis militate release. Cf. McSurely McClellan, 225 67, 75, 697 309, 317 (1982); O'Bryan Estelle, 691 706, 708 (CA5 1982), cert. denied, 465 1013, 1015, 79 (1984); Ruiz 650 555, 565-566 1981). merits falls below level, preference control. 13 contends, agreed, ought enlarged supports argument stating embody view governments vindicate their own systems. all dispute observation, note Attorney General speaking enlarging Whatever arising Until claim, applications using similar used judgments. finally contends dangerousness, even enunciated, "repugnant process, prohibits total deprivation liberty simply means preventing future crimes." Salerno, 794 64, 71-72 (CA2 1986). just reversing Second quoted incorrect statement law. 739, 2095, (1987). But less favorable position pretrial arrestee, challenge detention Unlike adjudged guilty beyond reasonable doubt jury, adjudication guilt upheld State. conviction constitutionally infirm, overturned retry petitioner. being agree Due Process Clause considering, along previously described, part 15 Appeals, relying latter's took too limited directing denying application further opinion. 16 ordered. whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 17 construes invest keep Because I novel allows usurp role undermine purpose dissent. 18 * system, forums questions charged offenses. applies bail law; grants right admitted bail. free deprive right, merely representative asks them to. supplant guaranteed processes developed enforce rights. 19 holding majority rejects Circuit's well-reasoned contrary (1986).1 Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, murder court, him maintained sought 23(d), started several principles: first, "immediately or, commonly, after appropriately circumscribed period time accused." F.2d, 994. Second, 995. Third, neither nor prisoners Ibid. 20 Based principles namely, "to determine infirmity infected defendant's trial," id., 996, concluded prevailed "only challenged put relating ability respond some respect relate interest." 996-997. sole reason advanced Carter's incarceration alleged matter reserved authorities decide," revoke emphasized did leave recourse: 21 "In not, compelling reasons, remain large, proceed courts. per se related issues concerns since victorious still faces indictment, forum seek responsibility concerning underlying indictment." 997-998. 22 based notions federalism comity. approach, deferring instead adversary party litigation. peculiar brand finds no support prior cases, reflect deference decisions, litigants representing State.2 disturbing fact majority's apparent basis cite single statute, rule preventive matter, postconviction hardly surprising, does permit confinement. Johnson, 61 N.J. 351, 294 A.2d (1972). Except capital Constitution Const., Art. I, ¶ 11; N.J.Rule Crim.Prac. 3:26-1(a); App.Prac. 2:9-3(d). confine hold invalid. Such clearly proper, much deserving deference. 24 suggests refusal somehow inconsistent "conditional writs" corpus,3 specified retries time. issuing conditional writs implicated fundamental noninterference procedures vindication state-law note, entirely By delaying period, gives defect through retrial II 25 today's disregard authorize indefinite full-blown hearing, appointing counsel, providing immediate satisfying elevated burden proof. Compare 747, 751-752, ----, ---- - area strikes me oriented, say least. Writing THE CHIEF JUSTICE chose rely "numerous procedural safeguards" Bail Reform Act 1984 sustain statute's constitutionality. 755, S.Ct., Recognizing "individual's liberty," stated: "We minimize importance nature right. But, hold, may, circumstances government's sufficiently weighty, subordinated greater needs society. Congress' careful delineation permitted satisfies standard." 750-751, (emphasis added). 26 Yet important stake, JUSTICE, again writing disregards absence safeguards erroneous unnecessary deprivations liberty. 27 attempts distinguish detainee observing State." Ante, 779. concedes, must, infirm notes "determination petitioner." observation trivializes ruling obtained rendered null void competent jurisdiction; continuation punishment delicately puts it, "continuing rehabilitation." 777. Bell Wolfish, 441 520, 535, 99 1861, 1872, 60 447 (1979) ("[A] punished accordance process law"). might later reversed diminish validity. discount rulings "may appeal." Granting deny undermines central proceedingss "protection illegal custody." Brown Allen, 344 443, 465, 73 397, 411, 97 469 (1953); Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 485-486, 1827, 1833-1834, 36 439 case,at issued, spent five years prison. He eligible parole approximately months.4 Had release, serve entire imposed unconstitutional. provided protection If confinement continue with, least conflict primary corpus. These include punishment, implies. ante, 29 Finally, reliance ignores identified Court: error directly implicates truth-finding mistaken identity elsewhere night crime. As defense, introduce testimony alibi witness. counsel file timely notice testimony, refused so. benefit witness' jury deliberated 21/2 verdict. noted witness strengthened created doubt, 523 (NJ present witnesses establish defense. III Title cited majority, 775, authorizes justice. longstanding substitute ad hoc rules established accused 31 full: "(c) Release ordering release.—Pending proceeding, recognizance, "(d) Modification custody.—An recognizance taken, On December 2, 1986, three-judge panel Subsequently, rehearing, vacated Appeals. summarily application. grounds relied clear. treated predicated foreclosed assumption well. derives former 34, promulgated 1886. Former petitioners: "3. Pending discharging answer except sureties required." 117 (1886). light differences between litigation procedure Harris Nelson, 394 286, 294, 89 1082, 1087, 281 (1969); 81(a)(2). Neither Civil 81(a)(2), forecloses uphold today. Where, here, need evident conduct "use [general civil] analogy otherwise." 1088. speculate, Rose Lundy, 455 509, 514, 102 1198, 1201, 379 (1982) (requiring exhaustion remedies); 449 539, 550, 101 764, 770, 66 722 (1981) (strict 2254(d)'s factual courts); Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 87, 2497, 2506, 53 594 (1977) (doctrine bar ordinarily dictates decline claims raised manner prescribed rules). conditional. February afforded period. App. 3; day 30-day expire, applied 6, denied. 17-18. waited two months moving 19, incarcerated another charge until 20, promptly expedited seems resolved three thus obviating Letter Allan J. Nodes, Deputy Chief, Section, Public Safety, Criminal Justice, Apr.

Classification Label: 0