Legal Document

523 U.S. 272118 S.Ct. 1244140 L.Ed.2d 387 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, et al., Petitioners,v.Eugene WOODARD. No. 96-1769. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 10, 1997. Decided March 25, 1998. Syllabus* After respondent Woodard's Ohio murder conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal this denied certiorari, petitioner Adult Parole Authority commenced its clemency investigation in accordance with state law, informing that he could have his voluntary interview members a particular date, hearing would be held week later. Respondent filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging Ohio's process violated Fourteenth Amendment due right Fifth to remain silent. The District granted judgment pleadings State, Sixth Circuit part reversed part. Noting Connecticut Bd. Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 458, 464-465, 101 2460, 2464-65, 69 158, had decisively rejected argument federal law can create liberty interest clemency, latter court failed establish life or protected by process. also held, however, respondent's "original'' pretrial interests "second strand'' analysis Evitts Lucey, 469 387, 393, 105 830, 834, 83 821, although amount minimal because while an "integral part'' adjudicatory system, is far removed from trial. remanded for decide what should be. Finally, concluded procedure presented "Hobson's choice'' between asserting privilege against self-incrimination participating review process, thereby raising specter unconstitutional condition. Held: reversed. 107 F.3d 1178, THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered opinion respect Part III, concluding giving inmate option voluntarily as does not violate rights. That protects compelled self-incrimination. See Baxter Palmigiano, 425 308, 316-318, 96 1551, 1557-58, 47 810. Even assumptions most favorable claim-i.e., nothing grants applicants immunity they might say makes any way confidential, will draw adverse inferences refusal answer questions-his testimony at "compelled.'' He merely faces choice quite similar those made criminal defendant course proceedings. For example, who chooses testify own defense abandons when prosecution seeks cross-examine him, may impeached proof prior convictions. In these situations, undoubted pressures are generated strength Government's case do constitute "compulsion'' purposes. Williams Florida, 399 78, 84-85, 90 1893, 1897-98, 26 446. Similarly, here has providing information Authority-at risk damaging postconviction relief-or remaining silent, but pressure speak make compelled. Pp. ____-____. JUSTICE, joined Justice SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, II violation Due Process Clause proceedings, either Dumschat Evitts, where, here, procedures question no more than confirm such decisions committed, Nation's tradition, executive's authority. This reaffirms holding supra, 464, 2464, pardon commutation rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects judicial review. Respondent's there continuing broader scope adjudicated trial sentencing barred Dumschat. inconsistent heart executive which grant matter grace, thus allowing consider wide range factors comprehended earlier proceedings determinations. Although maintains residual interest, e.g., being summarily executed prison guards, cannot use challenge determination requiring procedural protections seeks. Greenholtz Inmates Neb. Penal Correctional Complex, 442 1, 7, 99 2100, 2103-04, 60 668. Also claim entitled protection Evitts. Expressly relying combination two lines cases justify conclusion effective assistance counsel first right, U.S., 394-396, 834-36, did purport new "strand'' analysis, it rely notion continuum rights, claims. There continuum. See, Murray Giarratano, 492 9-10, 109 2765, 2769-71, 106 1. An examination function significance discretionary decision issue readily shows different "an integral . system finally adjudicating guilt innocence,'' requires. O'CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, that, prisoner life, raised constitutionally necessary protect interest. demands reduced once society validly convicted individual crime therefore established punish, Ford Wainwright, 477 399, 429, 2595, 2611-12, 91 335 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring result dissenting part), Appeals correctly some safeguards apply Judicial intervention might, warranted face scheme whereby official flipped coin determine whether where State arbitrarily access However, remand permit address specific allegations violations required. received comports regulations observes whatever limitations impose REHNQUIST, C.J., announced unanimous I, JJ., joined, II, joined. judgment, STEVENS, William A. Klatt, Columbus, OH, petitioners. S. Adele Shank, respondent. Chief REHNQUIST Parts I THOMAS join. 1 requires us resolve inquiries constitutional 158 (1981), 821 (1985). second inmates violates inmate's 2 We reaffirm our "pardon traditionally been business courts; such, review.'' Id., 2464 (footnote omitted). power authority executive.1 further hold Amendment. 3 * Constitution gives Governor upon conditions thinks proper. Const., Art. §2. General Assembly curtail decision-making power, regulate application Sheward, 71 St.3d 513, 524-525, 644 N.E.2d 369, 378 (1994). delegated large conduct Authority. Revised Code Ann. §2967.07 (1993). 4 sentence, must within 45 days scheduled date execution. Prior hearing, request one parole board members. Counsel allowed interview. complete review, recommendation Governor, even subsequently obtains stay If additional later becomes available, discretion another alter recommendation. 5 Eugene Woodard was sentenced aggravated committed carjacking. His appeal, Woodard, 68 70, 623 75 (1993), 512 1246, 114 2770, 129 883 When obtain execution before investigation. It informed September 9, 1994, wished, 16, 1994. 6 Instead, objected short notice requested assurances attend participate hearing. respond requests, 14, Rev. Stat. §1979, §1983 7 State's motion pleadings. 1178 (1997). determined "first arising out proceeding itself, noted "decisively clemency.'' 1183. 8 state-created clemency. 1184-85. Since retains final decision, Authority's purely advisory, created Olim Wakinekona, 461 238, 249, 103 1741, 1747-48, 813 (1983). reach same Sandin Conner, 515 472, 115 2293, 132 418 (1995), extent modified Olimanalysis. 9 went consider, centered "the role entire punitive scheme.'' 1186. relied statement "if appellate courts innocence defendant,' used deciding appeals comport of'' 834 (quoting Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 18, 76 585, 590, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956)). thought reasoning logically applied subsequent including appeals, post-conviction 10 possessed each proceeding. But proportion degree stage Clemency, required Clause, significant, available remedy preventing miscarriages justice exhausted. came framework system. since trial, minimal. itself be, purpose. 11 agreed him rights 1189. compelling forcing inmate. On other hand, measurable avoiding incrimination ongoing well possible charges crimes revealed during While noting uncertainties surrounding doctrine, doctrine case. 12 judge Court's judgment. 1194. majority's finding necessarily rationale overrule too speculative, given nature 520 ----, 117 2507, 138 1011 (1997), we now reverse. 13 argues first, disagreement Appeals, sentencing. (1986). argued, until executed.2 Relying Eighth capital cases, see, Beck Alabama, 447 625, 637-638, 2382, 2389-90, 65 392 (1980), asserts control outcome involved only Stevens' dissent agrees both counts. Post, __. 14 claimed Connecticut's Board provide explanation denial application. "no inherent right' sentence.'' 2464. unlike probation decisions, Ibid. 668 (1979), "that entitlement release [on parole] exists independently explicitly conferred State.'' 463-64, individual's ""is indistinguishable initial resistance confined,''' already extinguished sentence. Greenholtz, 2103). petition commutation, like "is simply unilateral hope.'' 465, 2465. 15 "a living person'' incorrect assert "extinguished.'' agree guards. helps clear, accord 2103-04.3 16 depend fact distinctions accorded point, post, __-__, __, primarily relevant And generally attempts expand further. 8-9, 2769-70, (1989) (opinion C.J.) (there collateral row inmates; recognizing special constraints dealt stage); Satterwhite Texas, 486 256, 108 1792, 1797, 284 (1988) (applying traditional standard case); Smith Murray, 527, 538, 2661, 2668, 434 (1986) habeas noncapital cases); Ford, 425, 2609-10 (POWELL, concurring) (noting imposing heightened requirements trials context).4 moreover, turned, non-capital case, benefit sought: "In terms felon's expectation lawfully imposed commuted pardoned substantial expectation, transferred prison; A "unilateral effect accepts finality purposes adjudication, grace. 17 establishing mandatory procedures. 11-12, 2105-06, expectancy language Nebraska statute measure protection. 18 Despite procedures, ultimate decisionmaker, broad discretion. Under Governor's need fettered types sought 12-16, 2106-08 (recognizing yet rejecting necessitated formal evidence board). substantive Moreover, 484, 2300, availability manner conducts "atypical significant hardship relation ordinary incidents life.'' Ibid.; see 1185-86. means serve originally imposed. 19 relies adopted Appeals. claims (1985), says, historically remedy, impacts stages enhances reliability convictions sentences. suggests, Circuit, across all phases 20 right. Id. 396, 836. holding, expressly based decisions. One line guarantees pursuing certain minimum adequate effective, counsel. 20, 591, (1956); Douglas California, 372 353, 814, 811 (1963). Gideon 335, 344, 792, 796, 799 (1963); Cuyler Sullivan, 446 1708, 1716, 64 333 (1980). These justified 394-96, 834-36. 21 analysis. evaluated light cases. Related similarly clear varying levels every conceivable phase 2769-71 (no proceedings); Pennsylvania Finley, 481 551, 555-57, 1990, 1993-94, 95 539 (1987) Ross Moffitt, 417 600, 610-11, 94 2437, 2443-44, 41 341 (1974) review). 22 Clemency trial-or They defendant, intended enhance conducted Executive Branch, independent relief 7-8, 2103-04. usually discretionary, structured limited defendants alternative avenue relief, "been courts.'' Cf. Herrera Collins, 506 390, 411-415, 113 853, 866-68, 122 203 (1993) authority, without suggesting subject review); Ex parte Grossman, 267 87, 120-121, 332, 337, 527 (1925) (executive harshness mistake vested courts). 23 Thus, defendant,'' 834. Procedures mandated consistent governmental invoked. Here, cease grace constrained sort urges. death, granted, benefit; denied, worse off before.5 III 24 presses Appeals' provision interview, statements inmate, implicates incriminate himself. Because guaranteed asserts, truly voluntary. forced questions; or, remains silence him. progress potentially himself crimes. concludes unconstitutionally assertion pursue waiver accepted rubric "unconstitutional conditions,'' find unnecessary opinion, view privilege. 25 316-18, 810 (1976). record tell what, any, questions posed brief dispels much uncertainty: "Nothing confidential. permissibly chosen allow thing petition, discovery feature procedure.'' Reply Brief Petitioners 6. 27 Assuming questions-which civil offending Amendment, 1557-58we think "compelled'' meaning difficult how "compel'' speak. sorts choices none ever 28 Long ago took stand Brown Walker, 161 597-98, 644, 647, 40 819 (1896); States, 356 148, 154-55, 78 622, 626-27, 589 (1958). takes behalf Spencer 385 554, 561, 87 648, 652, 606 (1967). whose acquittal close then elect put defense, accompanying doing so augment McGautha 402 183, 215, 1454, 1471, 711 (1971). pressures-generated him-pushing testify. never suggested 29 (1970), Florida's requirement advance notice-of-alibi default precluded alibi said: 30 rule prevents abandoning defense; matters left unfettered choice. made, bear induce call witnesses trial: force historical beyond state's built facts. Response kind offering transgressing Amendments.'' 1897-98 31 hope improving chance claim, IV 32 neither nor 33 Reversed. 34 whom BREYER join, 35 person consequently life. raises context "once accordingly.'' 2612, part). not, suggestion principal executive, provides safeguards. JUSTICE's rests (1979). found seeking lawful confinement. fairly sentenced, free confinement, extinguished. incorrect, STEVENS' notes, deprived __-__. true courts,'' entrusted believe 36 my view, Death Penalty Procedure issued, schedule approximately advise pre-hearing complied instructions several objections afforded contends days' inadequate; meaningful opportunity prepare pending; improperly excluded permitted chair; testifying submitting documentary amounts violation. received, forms 37 Accordingly, join concur 38 39 shall actually execute inmates-in words, deprive life-does obligation comply Amendment? text question. "deprive liberty, property law.'' Without "minimal, perhaps barely perceptible'' answered basic meet "minimal'' process.1 today, view-essentially Clause. reasoning, infected bribery, personal political animosity, deliberate fabrication false acceptable. Like respectfully disagree conclusion. properly directs attention action "deprive'' property. evaluating unfairly someone property, ask adversely affected conclude, "liberty interest'' place confined, Meachum Fano, 427 2532, 49 451 (1976), at-will employee "property job, Bishop Wood, 426 341, 2074, 48 684 is, room legitimate debate about obviously does. Nor commute deprivation stake 461, 2462, supported "crucial distinction has, parole, conditional desires.'' 2105, (1979).2 distinction'' points opposite direction contesting still rather desires. abundantly possesses 43 valid reasons elements fair Presumably eliminate aspect entirely, unquestionably virtually determining merits mercy. Nevertheless, equally entirely exempt think, contend governor ignore commands Equal Protection race, religion, affiliation granting denying Our support adopts 44 courts, employed satisfy 836, Likewise, duty authorize probation, exercise felons, parolee probationer Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 480-90, 92 2593, 2599-605, 484 (1972); Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 781-82, 93 1756, 1759-60, 656 (1973). establishes process.3 warrants greater cases.4 "death punishment country. From point severity society, sovereign taking citizens differs dramatically action. vital importance community appear reason caprice emotion.'' Gardner 430 349, 357-58, 97 1197, 1204, 51 393 (1977) (citations omitted) (plurality opinion). Those considerations decisional precedes 46 accept II. comes interlocutory posture, Court, "in evidentiary materials submitted parties,''5 syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 282, 287, 50 499. Stevens says raise equal connection decision. occasion alternatively tries characterize Authority, Governor. 8. But, Otherwise, noted, cognizable claim. 1184 (C.A.6 1997); 249-50, reason, reliance 2609-10, (1986), misplaced. become insane time 410, 2602. prohibition implicated protections. arose separate id., concurring). recognition basis defendant's "apply ignores caselaw contrary, assumes hearings parcel preceding mischaracterizes 1187-1188 1997). " leaves doubt: "There conditionally released expiration natural desire confined. conviction, safeguards, right: [G]iven liberty.''' 2104 (emphasis supplied; citation pointedly distinguished revocation "critical' difference prisoner's parolee's liberty. 9-11, 2104-06, quoting, inter alia, Friendly, "Some Kind Hearing,' 123 U. Pa. L.Rev. 1267, 1296 (1975).'' (1981) less stringent (1987), Indeed, Finley asked comported "fundamental fairness Clause.'' 557, 1994; 8, 2769, (""[T]he fundamental require [S]tate supply lawyer''' 1994)). then, wrong states "make system,'' ante, __; instead, turned due. protections, Yates Aiken, 211, 217-218, 534, 98 546 (1988), are. recognized play 411-17, 866-69, penalty Ala. Amdt. 38, Ala.Code §15-18-100 (1995); Ariz. V, §5, Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§31-443, 31-445 (1996); Ark. VI, §18, Ark.Code §§5-4-607, 16-93-204 (1997, Supp.1997); Cal. §8, Cal.Penal §§4800-4807 (West 1992); Colo. IV, §7, Colo.Rev.Stat. §§16-17-101, 16-17-102 (1997); Conn. §13, Gen.Stat. §18-26 Del. VII, §1, Del.Code Ann., Tit. 29, §2103 Fla. §940.01 Ga. §2, para; 2, Ga.Code §§42-9-20, 42-9-42 Idaho §20-240 Ill. §12, Comp. Stat., ch. 730, §5/3-3-13 Ind. §17, Ind.Code §§11-9-2-1 11-9-2-4, 35-38-6-8 (1993); Kan. §22-3701 Ky. §77; La. §5(E), La.Rev.Stat. §15:572 Md. §20, Ann.Code, 27, §77 (1996), 41, §4-513 Miss. §124, Miss.Code §47-5-115 (1981); Mo. Mo.Rev.Stat. §§217.220, 217.800, 552.070 (1994); Mont. Mont.Code §§46-23-301 46-23-316 Neb.Rev.Stat. §§83-1, 127 83-1, Nev. Nev.Rev.Stat. §213.080 N.H. pt. 52, N.H.Rev.Stat. §4:23 (1988); N.J. para. §2A:167-4 1985); N.M. §6, §31-21-17 N.Y. §4, Exec. Law §§15-19 (McKinney 1993); N.C. §5(6), §§147-23 147-25 §11, Rev.Code §§2967.01 2967.12 Okla. §10, 21, §701.11a (Supp.1998); Ore. §14, Ore.Rev.Stat. §§144.640 144.670 (1991); §9; S.C. S.C.Code §§24-21-910 24-21-1000 (1977 S.D. §3, Codified Laws §§23A-27A-20 23A-27A-21, 24-14-1 24-14-7 Tenn. Tenn.Code §§40-27-101 40-27-109 Tex. Tex.Crim. Proc.Code 48.01 (Supp.1997); Utah §77-27-5.5 (Supp.1992); Va. Va.Code §§53.1-229 53.1-231 Wash. §9, §10.01.120 Wyo. §7-13-801 (1995). course, irrelevant proceedings; having 400-01, 838-39,

Classification Label: 3