Tana Wood, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary v. Dwayne Earl Bartholomew (516 U.S. 1)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided October 10, 1995 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 516 U.S. 1 · 116 S. Ct. 7
- Decided
- October 10, 1995
- Term
- October Term 1995
- Vote
- 5–4
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of habeas relief based on its speculation that the prosecution’s failure to turn over the results of a polygraph examination of a key witness might have had an adverse effect on pretrial preparation by the defense. The Court of Appeals assumed, and the parties do not dispute, that the results were inadmissible under state law both for substantive purposes as well as for impeachment. The decision below is a misapplication of our Brady jurisprudence, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), and we accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings. I On August 1, 1981, respondent Dwayne Bartholomew robbed a laundromat in Tacoma, Washington. In the course of the robbery, the laundromat attendant was shot and killed. Two shots were fired: One hit the attendant in the head; the second lodged in a counter near the victim’s body. From the beginning, respondent admitted that he committed the robbery and that the shots came from his gun. The only issue at trial was whether respondent was guilty of aggravated first-degree murder, which requires proof of premeditation; or of first-degree (felony) murder, which does not. Respondent’s defense was that the gun, a single action revolver (one that must be cocked manually before each shot), discharged by…
Excerpt of a 13,237-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.