Thomas v. Arn, Superintendent, Ohio Reformatory for Women (474 U.S. 140)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 4, 1985 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 474 U.S. 140 · 106 S. Ct. 466
- Decided
- December 4, 1985
- Term
- October Term 1985
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Marshall
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1976, Congress amended §101 of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U. S. C. § 636, to provide that a United States district judge may refer dispositive pretrial motions, and petitions for writ of habeas corpus, to a magistrate, who shall conduct appropriate proceedings and recommend dispositions. Pub. L. 94-577, 90 Stat. 2729. The amendments also provide that any party that disagrees with the magistrate’s recommendations "may serve and file written objections” to the magistrate’s report, and thus obtain de novo review by the district judge. The question presented is whether a court of appeals may exercise its supervisory powers to establish a rule that the failure to file objections to the magistrate’s report waives the right to appeal the district court’s judgment. We hold that it may. b-i Petitioner was convicted by an Ohio court m 1978 of fatally shooting her common-law husband during an argument. The evidence at trial showed that the victim was a violent man who had beaten petitioner on a number of occasions during the previous three years. Petitioner raised the issue of self-defense at trial, and sought to call two witnesses who would present expert testimony concerning the Battered Wife Syndrome. After conducting a voir dire of these witnesses in chambers, the trial court refused to admit the testimony, on the grounds…
Excerpt of a 36,258-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.