Don Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. William Weaver (550 U.S. 598)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 21, 2007 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 550 U.S. 598 · 127 S. Ct. 2022
- Decided
- May 21, 2007
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 6–3
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Petition denied or appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. We granted certiorari in this case, 549 U. S. 1092 (2006), to decide whether the Court of Appeals had exceeded its authority under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) by setting aside a capital sentence on the ground that the prosecutor’s closing statement was “unfairly inflammatory.” Weaver v. Bowersox, 438 F. 3d 832, 841 (CA8 2006). Our primary concern was whether the Court of Appeals’ application of the more stringent standard of review mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, was consistent with our interpretation of that statute. Cf. Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. 70 (2006). We are now aware of circumstances that persuade us that dismissal of the writ is the appropriate manner in which to dispose of this case. The argument made by the prosecutor in this case was essentially the same as the argument that he made in two other cases — one of which involved respondent’s codefendant. See Shurn v. Delo, 177 F. 3d 662, 666 (CA8 1999); Newlon v. Armontrout, 693 F. Supp. 799 (WD Mo. 1988), aff’d, 885 F. 2d 1328 (CA8 1989). In each of those cases, the defendant received a death sentence. Also in each case, the defendant filed a petition seeking federal habeas relief before AEDPA’s effective date. Federal habeas relief was granted in all three cases. The State does not question the propriety of relief in the other two cases…
Excerpt of a 5,559-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.