Brief Amicus Curiae of Indiana State

    To Feed 
  

  

go Fudlod, 

od U- Wainuniget 

2 Lop v. Constvmpes Union Ub 6 USYgs, 50) n. 1( (984) 

Piste v. Kuss = 224 53% (1923) 
ULC felon, - Uy us oy (fz) 

Shdnkv. ssh igh - bt (¢ us 335 (1b) 
Nal v. Bigees | “9 ue. 18%, (930.3 (1972) 

at Bitty ire brief ~ 

Blamchan) v. Banger, 1095.4. 939, 9ut-941 (1989) 

Got Habeas Cop Hatsigs 00 KRIS3IS = Bere Sudeomm ox Grim 
ie hm. 2 Sos KOT) 

we Syl sed mi 
av. Clifomi< SUS #730 ( 189) 

Vitor v. Ea Stl. SCO.0. — 1-5 
(odd. dtl — 829 [50 

Shika v. (asd; i. 

Swill Vv. Mag) 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
ty i Toh 

pyran 
  

 



  

Hammds Zvrr 

¢ Bip Maskell, "Reda Roza, Ba, Adlon  Phaguatl Cogn / 
un Oollitl Ala &lime ; Tg Healer, 

 



he S goede) 2254 (4) aria 43 cela quacsy ) 

— Coe L ejudico — upal howd we. 

  

The tude. — ouewy twa Haw 1s = Lia. 

Govt sled t bare ane ean hb 

/ 

- & bat ho Ou fel lid amp 

Sulu 
— Wis wlll ngpld jn Ext — 

¢ | hues 

You may despa pil huis — (ut fle jks umd TH 

® ond wd It & a (uasmably fda, — Duby 
Pe 52. 

Judy, fad Th Mov wre pio peasy  



  

Get Wie st 

  

  

. i 
¢ Beh. 

A judieal rds ~ fg urd line lied 

i be. 
rE | 

(ijn Soe TI fier Aude Sabsdi ony 

i 
ow 5 Jlfoneis — age. on 

Pe TB phe, lone fl sha 

BES I 2 oy ol) ido) Sn 

9 Ad 722 Ci of 
lus 52 i iiy Eulone  



  

Chedl (buen col acidic, v 

X book at Saf & Bitton - tho sol (ripe 
J Duds Jota d § — 

| 

rt Yi Spi ts prumds 
Not mihgch endows — 

Col MEemdud™ 

[he w oly in bor hates, 

_ When Ho Sty cuit-ds to pd aig ~ tho < 
= Pre is conoraiely utes ee SUC(sSIVK fort os 

pe wm. 

I Sh als ad 
40 lack 

[i fied pradund jou ¢ i “ 

    

Np Yeas dh sit hou 
a EA en 

i dnt — tu ~ 

53 rath wy 2% i otic 

Tinchy od] 2m iE He char mdb Ap foe oo  



    

  

& tio pu sad b Ponados _ Set ono of pun ~ tend, panp it 

(NX 4 

4 J ¢, wad - af” I. 

Th Cl ah <onch oF blk dsp 1] ply ad 

      
He 8 Sh add 2» dgpinec~ J His 02 hes 

Ed — | wae pop. it / 

Ou guuchm § andar & recsssb 
Mie is — lee nliip dug Loa Sante unl ltf — 

Sy Yn cep Hover — tl) adoed Police priccandadt. 

Teg ay bor Sood Bo i 
® Thy simpli; 4 Ho quastin ha a astip - Smee tn Vs com 

Ty amen — Cit & wtvse os Tir) ov Iaaiey cuduted 

= Wied di dwt como wm Mo poles Avned 

> dl 7 7A 

| pill. > /88 

Ly rs fhog ts 

~ Juss — duo 

  
© 7 Toto, ata to rod 4 wliod jy Dish Guat 

lp, 52 — buf orushandd imp dl.



  

Pict Mat - kC. 10] 234s 

(3 This Cue bate Cowl 

Rd etitem 

du Ap 8) 12€7 Hus Count Died] relief 

Peti fumes 

Avet Ledoal agpleatin 

Uo who fan SchedJed fo be elochoeXd 

¢ J Jed 

(2 HM mid -Jaw IBY, hoes 

previausly wn dis Lesa d lowe tan 

+ ld 
Dish SUEY sti 

(1) Ald corlein Athnh 
A vec lel 

0 Lor comer {Pvt 

(2) ol Keay, hab amaryl) fo fine Com 

  

  ft hee



  

® Hut fay ha A tncgunad Evans ™ Gusshen 

petitions. Segett, 

ha J) abhi 

(¥) Cn Evan had Lat become a lau, (Albee 

fre Proseadin 

Huse allopbins, £ paren, wes 
er ( h ed ll 4 yislaha J Massial 

a 

 



  

® @, Le HL vont A ey 
[MM co 

ih wi ok “ 
fy LETH Lo 

an adjourned dd — ss 

The bet Cul ealodd 4 yy J Dt 

Jods, dil shed pug, Le Sars bk fos Wed 

Lt Co ha. Messe enseged 

te Te Cord 77 ee eT ) Topeals renersal Ey 

EC Blea i 
Tr did 2 =<, ot Tl esl 

    

  

  

  

  

  

  

ep fr. chad r. 

& wid J habeas Ee 
ad : (ALad fis He IEC 

    

md SEL yoke dat any Wlagsizl Ue lah 

< bead = | 2 bi X Mas — 

# gs fy do patio e's Cal 

mich lk a gee A ce §) clot . 

  

  

  

   



  

ig) is Wtse fo (Shor — 

Adbru se of Ho wt z 

hand Hey 

fal aio bohee Ho Gud today 

hil fo Cauit's Germain, 34 lets sls 
Govt Tn thal ovda . 

Ais proved Hee Sates AMggctron A abuse 

” 5 

(s the Umaitital fut Hak petitions 
did asset a Massh Lam Gn Win 111hel 

Slate hileeas (tion, 

nd (at ha Aiki bs ying Hee tin fosz] 
nh edad canit. 

  

Wat did nat conshs au aloo 4) 

Bo wnt ules 

28% U.s<. b 22v4(L) 
Buty (0 

wd nds v. US  



  

Yds wre me) indeed fo i, 
  

® Wasps lity | sada noc ne the 
Ddnd Cad . 

  
€ 

(3 Ms, te -rumadd Stadt Kploe Co clo 

SBP) “Tire YIU 
® Invechy Jaabars py 

Pesiguiap sft e~   Glussbi~ed De ble.



  

  
le Bek Gud emmlidsd 

nn dM lech Ss 

No Imaxeasal rglest 

i ret Pnpusfed bs dcgon 
— fgded Bs G- 

oh LY g rd 

Sada tl Olt 
; ji hare 10 und (lefak — 

Fanndys 
po——  



  

  
  

O (oar and (Mlisahsy Rosgemmioldy= £98, pt 

hick Cite at Pin / Aptals Crh Cot la 
Dithnek Crunk Hae ead feck 
Dea dd 

Lon] sds Hiljeded 
  

tnt Sls Micnaond | OF Was Xb Game Dlg] > | Re Pxenhia) Bb FRsat 
x ss Whats Utter eld i Ne. Ph3eaman_ 

Talyd Tor Uain, Gil £0) Becane. He | 
od. To MMiccrndud Soir Lrtei=Bapan rd lah 

bploibshin te Mit coud — Fon Ts ft, 
55 nr lth SE ATI Vi2 wh Toss 

    
      

  

oH CF Pu 3) Ta (UF rh 

Undo ted he Jc 38 Pins Ii 
      

    
© aa 

Lay 4) Bohs? frandatvinggit Bonanig Pe Lain Ie 

Jie bapa font ge Wich, Head “he unde, | 

Pod in TT bm bls 8, 
Mi: > = Tht Oye Be Mave folie Officas yi 

tke NRW In B own, befrnad Db Cla, 
PY pend — Phy Rocted Wian TB bi 

— sy Pied A Talor Jp Mr Heil, fromm 
 



  

1. Wed Wd Hly etl 1olhc Xk enbnic holdup a Gig? 

3 Pointe — 

D) Cant hea ido weds abel 
Stn pa h% Powy (B Mis comdledl 

Pefondes vs Pulled By Puls bh Amy Els muse ld 
- 

Lob: Habea. Covpun & dudonsd 

2) EA I Fr clpandip 

  

3) (tO) Rope mods new lads. 

 



  

Loledt Shrugs tan, Monin, tue 29] 

() he codndsd x bold indtiphs b [seats 
LAM I%og Sho vayt Confirm r= dawg le NSB 

J & Uiglhs = 

(2) he SaugA & Siow devine ds Ah mht fold 

%. & Macs 2b wolehriclsy ; 

(3) ho Gust had Ofc Ee, rls afruad, es I 

on | & 

(4) ha quod fo Gute prosoets | alee ande 

  

To Ry rslyild 4 bo fey Fella &. Jud 
wid indudiy fe (Mase bcos Elin     
Tho doimsnd vequrst edad 5 omen 08 = 
Mecsady violpho. . 

uss — aslé hes cs Mr Sa ed EW 
ts — stints uo Mii 

4 Dosrcit oT fre hbied : 

X 
X 

Jt Un Ip Tad A al Pe ell gf JA Tnoschped — 

diduit hae : 
(0) pun Opry Stilt 

(2) Oe. bane . 

Wy didi com lps fundsd, 

   



  

  

    
   
   

      

The [hsket Cond . wy : 

Me Shl¢ me cmotuet i EA i te fs 

Moun, ECR LA Pudi Zone pe 

Ga, us HS Ctta 410s trend 
Oz ened Crovirs tie in 

A fo Shh ha No | oa NOFA : - 

fn Béne AINE TE 2 vn bg i 

  

  

 



    

iE Chord ane Ud] vob aSbudad pF 5 
cio te Mare Consormhi re Dell, Hackl 

Than, Suds - 
te AT 
Pt Clot Logit Cred US] Hops ling, 

  

Unda, (Lf Shdad — RalCh pnd — fo Moy bn, 

No Kotson Ty HH Mao 7 SonPtins 

 



mn need 

Tho Contd) Appeade yiolalad Budo 52 wlan iF rejecsd 
ho Gn (aud © Fa fr-day oA Ame of To anit 

  

  

  

  

Woty cde 734085 
Zz 

— second (robea, h6d Wn I tn, 
has: SN (VY 2 ®> J] “va 2% Td J 

(87, I+ come bere a ode Who dy WE cue 

J      

    

  

  

  

      
  

  

lovet 
fv Ape tina Buch 4 Croet 

(3 f to A GC i WE ts Eo 
. 

 



  

J imUite wan Ao ro-read) fe Rut 125 pope of te LET 

od desis = 
Pelifaien is posed — ares C At) gp — 

Uke diduit you 

LE pln TE 
nd yit— as Judge Sovrece Heo epoca, 

as bo sun taf hed loo, whl d tps 

fo bape 5 ase em Lg 7 CM 

pi Lunds Mp ¢ aud ry 13 
opr! ds LH Zang 

  

  
    

 



  

Fak ie Suge tv tho Arp pddato oud — pdose three 

(ad fporduips aca sa foals eA — mses, Fhe 

ie a ny ro) 4 Ne PEE SR B= BE tg 

dio tr. Acagot (pe 12k 2 & 

  

   

  

  

 



  

pe Bro Rede S2., dete 5 

bs Prades. | stand ho Coibce ¢ Hose 

ph Wo fade Far tre rm ha Stes 

pe J) alrwee — 

pi o fo oid, J) Me Merz ly losin 

£18 foe i 

  

  

  
gd 

Tidy s Fontity fond 0d ys 
Who hy NY Try) 

tie Wl 2vir. 
 



  

() Toe usd brane ic llablin toe 2 lone J] Gide 
Chadd, ears hoon dicarend by WOH) ttn] 

3 Chatter fiakeao Lamm — oes did pot-6:d 
Wot. tober oe Df l Ce dtmed to lice didi. 
Mina) Hr, Fao last, hon 

luk is fades all oder of S NE floc 4 4 fous Ta wire. 

IF & we iy Ey, Hat 

  

come adr upld 6 itung Ue in, 

ud fis, dap table [pled bv Feline Ho 

if 
~~ 

  

  
Tos MBA 1:1 5 ga fg Gf me li Mer<t 

et Siatr ct hid le os 
Se aad bad 

i 2 Chet pends in mado 4 

hoe Mecha, dan dwid Ge. Sd 

  

es sda (lo 23. 

one S Sd dle ber Gnagh, Of 

T hae nat pruweu do be So. Jw, Cand 
Shrdd Preve flu, Cane by renal Ve 

bower (rund f) The PBL scatin 4) chess in ants 
 



  

- an 7 it = 

an ) frye, " I ~~ 

1 

{/ 

      
  

The Cruid §) Appeals Frud, ud] fluo peste Ef sn 

         

Wn | cy Sek Trtinn ndd Coe 

AN leo (pd / Appel, — Ne bse frmilians 
G5 Lande oo ot he Ur LR 
Mn Ca Dochiod” Crud rly. 

bp Ui % 2vaclly tho yi Ad Ps Crd 

Cnbomped vi Amedas — 

Tag 

[un we 110 (Kise i Ap Moa ~ 

  

4 

  
Thr 4uschins hove bo died paddle] Fo 

ahi Talis Leela 
were 2, Go 

() [ati Ble Evin,’ Ue pepe Ey Same 

Ww “polie & 

(£) Whyte LIN ¢ ffs 

 



  

Hspmallih sons Her bdo pte. 

The cams uk ll Guple Janes 

 



  

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

ROBERT LEE SHELL v. MISSISSIPPI 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 70 THE SUPREME 

COURT OF MISSISSIPPI 

No. 89-1278. Decided October 29, 1890 

PER CURIAM. 

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pay- 

peris and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. To 

the extent that the Mississippi Supreme Court relied on the 

“especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating factor in 

affirming petitioner's death sentence, its decision is rev : 

See Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U. S. 356 (1988). Although 

the trial cow in this case used a limiting instruction to define 

the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” factor, that in- 

struction is not constitutionally sufficient. See Godyrey V. 

Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980); Cartwright V. Maynard, 822 

F. 24 1477, 1459-1401 (CA10 1987), aff'd, 486 U.S. 356 

(1988). The case 18 remanded to the Mississippi Supreme 

Court for further consideration in light of Clemons v. Missise 

sippi, 494 U. S. — (1990). 
It is so ordered. 

‘ 

 



          

     



                        

   

    

i ] TH pnt TTi*F [ | =I i EL ll - i=" ] mesons ans TTT TT ii |r RE y I a J Ie Ye] 

. - 

191%” YY i + oy ¥ Poa Os LI -hRale "0 y Li] H] Ee] 
we 5 i fw §- RL! WA L114 0 I 1 A 4 | 

. 7 4 y " oe} ‘TE y g % oH 11 3 TT 1) 
4 i ae & id A dh dh fet fe oie Se ¥ & 

I —NSYSnisté’ 

 



                  

        

    

    

fe 4 T i q a \ T Ths oli i ; §il f {yl | | | li u 11 ! rid LL til i 1 

we | vias egy » {a if ei il hn | LLY. TE | L LI } ‘ wt party EE ———— A S— we 

: b # ' . 
5 - a i } ? i | 3 ' tL: 1 fF 5 La | 

ef lhe irr eS Sev W A » ; ingle 4 i 7 : ¥ Fe Ny 

2 ’ » y : n ol . " 1 } 
1 - WE 3 . f bd 1 i ; 1 9m i 

. % 4 . * 8 Fy \ = Me Bi he Bg § 

. 8 - ' ml | 

y & \ x, “ Fo bi 1 

aaa ay = 

 



                   
  

  

          

          
    

  

    

  

=. ul 1 LH] a rl 
Yap Data LLU rel 4 It fd] je] a) A [ 

— R—— A ——— ——rr FR — NE da ——— costs y om A ha KS i. 

oS oi or ey, . PURE. J GY BA 4 3 i 3 

y | k 7 i 11 Ca | [W | 54% Al ] -y - 

. -l 4 t (3 ds ¥ 5 ¢ Ewe Bd i ; 5 tes ON 55 tt 4 4 

Fe = ; 4 1 San ea . LF Ta i 

i ; . i : i 

{ i y 
i ” - ¥ ty BT ot 

   



 
 

Host   

 
 

r 

 
 
  

  
  

 
 

+ 

 
 

  
 
 

  
  
 
 

iid 
. 

. 

- 

  

  
 





Heve, ALIN Hig fovtui hes J timing 

mb Hs 

 



0 stm ovenrch i, and THILO, | a fates, 50 puns 

  

  

  

Sate 
faced Tun Guoshens 

  

 



ORM ARGUMENT 

ARR) MECLEKR v. WALTER 0. 24d T 
SutREME CounNT oo THe UMTED STRATES 

Ock=ber 31, 19% 

This Is a cage hud State Miccondudt -- 

a Nassich violation — — Cabout how that 

miscondud was HIDDEN by Jake offeals 

  

  

  

br NINE Veres avd (3 about hed i} 

 



  

Wide dd Wo dud, s CR lnk 
Was if whe, Eons Ls 

nl a 

Re ead? 

w= INA i aha pla Ey 

fend 
  

| Sand) oid cdr eset och Lot 1s 10 

 



  

So vesprae © N.~ by didit BoStagp fitoustw thy 3 ddechins 7 
A dood apposed - Ps am attomey | Eb Judd bak to ost pow 

Joeop. h ollos fix} | S@ hla, tay hed sued 2 
i volahinsagy Tul prtaliy sveraddine Clioice gf went 

2) Comsd, Stnebland v. Weel 

a. Fege 8] — Is Legos tTidpe. orvestes compo > Wankrcr « 

Cis. 

2. lial teri sayin toad “ihoxousllaslodt“ 2 “doblent: 
(pase * ae tuided, Frosh — but frat to ad apiacy ) an 
Iuka € A (7 Hea Gpastiom 

 



 



"1126 

  

Leslie LOWENFIELD, petitioner, v. C. 

Paul PHELPS, Secretary, Louisiana 

Department of Corrections, et al. No. 

86-6867. 

Former decision, 107 S.Ct. 3221; 107 

S.Ct. 3227; 108 S.Ct. 30; 108 S.Ct. hae. 

Case below, 671 F.Supp. 423; 5 Cir., 817 

F.2d 285. 

March 7, 1988. The petition for rehear- 

ing is denied. 

Justice KENNEDY took no part in 

the consideration or decision of this 
petition. 

w 

0 Ever NUMBER SYSTEM 

T 

2 

Patrick W. MURPHY, appellant, v. 

AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY, 
etc, et al. No. 87-5587. 

Former decision, 108 S.Ct. 447. 

Case below, 9 Cir., 815 F.2d 714. 

March 7, 1988. The petition for rehear- 

ing is denied. 

Justice KENNEDY took no part in 
the consideration or decision of this 

petition. 

O ¢ KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 

“
A
m
s
 

3 

Henry L. DANIELS, petitioner, v. SEC- 

RETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
SERVICES. No. 87-5839. 

Former decision, 108 S.Ct. 722. 

Case below, 6 Cir., 825 F.2d 410. 

  

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 

March 7, 1988. The petition for rehear- 

ing is denied. 

Justice KENNEDY took no part in 
the consideration or decision of this 

petition. 

© = KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 

~
m
s
 

Mark A. TRAPANI, petitioner, v. CBS 

RECORDS, INC., et al. No. 87-5904. 

Former decision, 108 S.Ct. 764. 

March 7, 1988. The petition for rehear- 
ing is denied. 

Justice KENNEDY took no part in 

the consideration or decision of this 

petition. 

O ¢ KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 

—
“
m
s
=
 

Patricia A. WHITE, petitioner, v. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 

No. 87-6056. 

Former decision, 108 S.Ct. 784. 

Case below, 32 M.S.P.R. 99; Fed.Cir., 829 

F.2d 43. 

March 7, 1988. The petition for rehear- 
ing is denied. 

Justice KENNEDY took no part in 
the consideration or decision of this 

petition. 

—— 

  

  
 



) 

  
  

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS 
Cite as 108 S.Ct. (1988) 

1 

James E. WHEELER, ef al. petitioners, 
v. COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS 

OF KENTUCKY. No. R7-732. 
Former decision, 108 S(t. 702 

Case below, 6 Cir, 822 F.2d 586. 
March 7, 1988. The petition for rehear- 

ing and/or other relief ic denied. 

Justice KENNEDY took no part in 
the consideration or decision of this 
petition. 

O KEY NUMBER Sy 11 My 
A po —

“
m
s
 

2 

Zelma FRAZIER, petitioner, v. 
RAILROAD RETIREMENT 

BOARD. No. 87-5879. 
Former decision, 108 S.Ct. 757. 

March 7, 1988. The application to sus- 
pend the effect of the order denying certio- 
rari addressed to Justice KENN EDY and 
referred to the Court is denied. The peti- 
tion for rehearing is denicd. 

Justice KENNEDY took no part in I 
the consideration or decision of this 
application and petition 

w corres, 
© Exey NUMBER Syaii it) 

3 AAA 

3 

K MART CORPORATION, petitioner, 

v. CARTIER, INC, 

No. 86-495. 

47th STREET PHOTO). INC., petitioner, 
v. COALITION TO PRESERVE THE 
INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN TRADE- 
MARKS, et al. No. 86-621. 

UNITED STATES, et al. petitioners, v. 
COALITION TO PRESERVE THE IN- 
TEGRITY OF AMERICAN TRADE- 

MARKS, et al. No. 86-625. 

et al, 

Former decision, 107 S ( 642; 107 S.Ct. 
1562; 107 S.Ct. 1563: 108 S.Ct. 26107 

S.Ct. 1563; 108 S.Ct 

S.Ct. 950. 

Case below. 

U.S. App.D.C. 342, 790 | 

March 7, 1988 

to the calendar for rear 
its. 

S.G. ADAMS PRINT 

TIONERY COMP A 

CENTERS, INC, 

Case below, 153 111. Aj 
Dec. 891, 506 N.E.2d 
113 Ill.Deec. 302, 515 N 

March 9, 198%. 

certiorari is dismissed ; 

of this Court. 

Richard L. DUGGER, &. 
Department of Corre 
Larry Joe JOHNSON 

On application to vaca 

March 15, 198% 
Attorney General of Flori 
vacate the stay of executi 
Qeath entered by the Unit 
Court for the Northern ] 
presented to Justice KI 
him referred to the Court 

Justice O'CONNOR, will, 
CHIEF JUSTICE joins, di 

Larry Joe Johnson was 
executed on March 9, 19x 
forms us that it was served 

for a writ of habeas corp 
p.m. on March 7, 1988, 
an issue, under Caldwell 

472 11.8. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2634 
Johnson claims that the 
was improperly informed t}, 
sentencing decision was 

Noting that issues similar 

1127 

108 S.Ct. 27; 108 

pp. 844; 252 

903. 

0S are restored 

ent on the mer- 

‘« AND STA- 

v. MAY 

87-1229. 

4 1018, 106 111. 

116 I11.2d 561, 

111. 

ion for writ of 

ant to Rule 53 

retary, Florida 

ms, et al. v, 

0. A-693. 

tay. 

ication of the 

ran order to 

I sentence of 

lates District 

ict of Florida 

EDY and by 

denied. 

vhom THE 

nting. 

heduled to be 

I'he State in- 

ith a petition 

t about 5:45 

tition raised 

Wississipp, 
5), in which 

encing jury 

ts role in the 

v advisory. 

identical to  



   
- 

ais-d 

vn 
ej 

ft ee 
av 

apprela 

  

     

    
   
    

  

P- 

  

    

     
    
    

      

  

¢ 
1128 

Johnson's Caldwell claim are pending be- 
fore the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Eleventh Circuit and before this Court, 
the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Florida granted an 
indefinite stay of execution. The United 

States Court of Appeals for the Elevent 

Circuit denied the State's motion to vacate 

the stay. The State then applied to the 

Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit for 
a vacation of the stay, and the application 

  

was referred to the full Court. Johnson 
did not file any response, and this t 
has voted to deny the application. I re- 
  spectIily dissent: 

eroaumn e 

The State argues that Johnson has 
[ose the writ of habeas corpus by rais- 

ing his Caldwell claim at this time. The 

State avers that Johnson a ites ths 
same claim, along wi 
ous petition for federal a which was 

filed before this Court's decision Th Cald- 

grounds a ime, an TIFT: 
a on which ye] 

well was announced while the appeal was 
pending in the Eleventh Circuit, and John- 
son apparently did not bring it to the atten- 
tion of that court. Concluding that the 
claim was abandoned, fhe State now Urges. 

this time constitutes an abuse of the writ. 

“In my view, the State is clearly correct to 
are The oT Talaatoras is 

abused when a claim is raised in one peti- 
tion, abandoned on appeal, and then raised 

again in a successive petition. If Johnson's 

Caldwell claim falls into this category, 
then the District Court would seem to have 
abused its discretion by granting an indefi- 

nite stay of execution on the ground that 
Caldwell issues are present in other cases 

pending before the Eleventh Circuit and 
before this Court. 

Without ruling out the possibility that 
extraordinary circumstances might justif; 

our attention. istrict Court not 
a 

        

  

   

   
   
   
   

   
   
    

   

   
    

    

   

    
   
   
    

   

  

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 

address the argument that the State has 
made to this Court. The State explains 
this in the following way. In an effort to 
facilitate the District Court’s consideration 
of any habeas petition that Johnson might 
file, it lodged an anticipatory response with 

that court. That response did not address 

Johnson's Caldwell claim because the State 
considered that claim abandoned. After 

Johnson filed his petition on March 7, the 
State prepared a supplemental response, 
which it expected to offer to the court at a 

hearing that was scheduled for the next 
morning at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for the 
State arrived at 9:30, but “was informed 
that the hearing was canceled and the [Dis- 
trict] Court had entered a stay without 
allowing the State to be heard.” The 
State’s attorney filed its written supple- 
mental response with the Clerk of the Dis- 
trict Court, and subsequently filed a motion 

to vacate the stay with the Eleventh Cir- 

cuit. 

Arguing before the Eleventh Circuit, 

Johnson gave two reasons for concluding 
that the District Court had considered and 
rejected the State’s abuse-of-the-writ argu- 

ment. First, Johnson had anticipated and 

answered the argument in his petition. 
Second, the stay of execution was not actu- 

ally entered until 10:31 a.m. on March 8, by 
which time the District Court would have 
had an opportunity to review the State's 
supplemental response to the petition. 
Johnson also argued to the Eleventh Cir- 

cuit that entry of the stay of execution was 

not an abuse of discretion because he did 

not ‘‘consciously’”’ abandon the Caldwell 

claim he raised on his first petition for 
federal habeas. Rather, he suggested, in 
failing to appeal the rejection of that claim 
his attorneys merely “conceded defeat on 
the merits.” 

On March 11, 1988, the Eleventh Circuit 

denied the State’s motion to vacate the stay 

of execution. No reasons were given, and 
the only allusion to the State’s arguments 
was the following sentence: “Such denial is 
without prejudice to [the State's] right to 
present in district court its argument that 

  

  

    

  



  

petitioner’s Caldwell claim is barred be- 

cause of failure to exhaust. procedural de- 
fault herwise. 

  

    The standard under which we consider 

motions to vacate stays of execution is 
deferential, and properly so. (nly when 

the lower courts have clearly ahmed their 

diseretion in granting a stay should we 
take the extraordinary step of overturning 
such a decision. In the present case, Tow 

ever, there is no evident legal basic whatso- 

ever for a stay. The State has presented” 

an apparently meTitorious argument that 

Johnson's attempt to raise a Caldwell 

  

  

  

  

  

  

elgim at this time 1s an abuse of the writ, 
warid~Johnson’s suggestion that his previous 

abandonment of the claim was uo “conces- 

sion of defeat on the merits,” rather than a 

“conscious abandonment seems altogether 

specious, If the District Court refused to 

consider the State's apparently meritorious 
argument, that was certainly an abuse of 

discretion. If the District Court considered 

the argument but deemed it too insubstan- 
tial to require any comment, that too must 

be considered an abuse of discretion unless 
and until we are informed of reasons that 

would justify the implicit rejection of the 
State’s position. The Eleventh Circuit ar- 
ticulated no such reasons, and in fact ap- 

peared to indicate that it knew of none. 

  

  

  

  

    
The Eleventh Circuit seems to have 

thought that the proper course was to 

leave the stay in effect, but to indicate that 
the State was free to return to the District 

Court and repeat the argument it had 

sought to present earlier. [1 disagree. 

When a stay of execution has been granted 
without an apparent legal basis, and the 

court of appeals cannot articulate a reason 

for leaving the stay in effect, the proper 
course is to vacate the stay. Because nei- 

ther the District Court nor the Court of 
Appeals has articulated an adequate legal 

basis for entering a stay in this case, I 
would grant the State's application to va- 

  

Cite as 108 S.Ct. (1988) 

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS 1129 

cate. Johnson would, of cow remain 

free to return to the District irt and 

seek a stay based on adequiie legal 
grounds, if there are any. 

      

  

A majority of this Court has iously 

expressed its disapproval of th ration 

tactics that seem to have been ci loyed in 

this case: 

“This is another capital case 1 which a 

last-minute application for a «1. of exe- 

cution and a new petition f habeas 

corpus relief have been filed vith no 

explanation as to why the el were 

not raised earlier or why the re not 

all raised in one petition. It i another 
example of abuse of the writ Wood- 

ward v. Hutchins, 464 U.S. 37 (T-378, 

104 S.Ct. 752, 752, 18 L.Ed.2d i 11 (1984) 

(Powell, J., joined by Burge: I., and 

Blackmun, Rehnquist, and O'Conoor, JJ, 

concurring). 

While the details of this case ar newhat 

different, we are faced once ap with a 

last-minute effort to obtain a sta. «1 execu- 

tion on the basis of a claim that cars to 

be procedurally barred. Allowin; his stay 

to remain in effect creates incent es that 

will almost surely lead to similar [1oblems 

in the future: 

“If.this Court defers only to + rants of 

stays, while giving searching iew to 

every denial of a stay, the low federal 

courts may in time come to i stays 
routinely. In that event, Bar Iv. Es- 

telle’s statement that stays ol « ccution 

are not automatic in capital «os, 463 

U.S. [880], at 895 [103 S.Ct. 33%: it 3396, 
77 L.Ed.2d 1090], would effectively be 

overruled.” Wainwright v. Bo ler, 473 

U.S. 935, 936, n. 3, 106 S.Ct. 30, =7 L.Ed. 

2d 706 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring). 

Accordingly, I respectfully dicsont from 

the Court's denial of the State's a; lication 

in this case 

  

TE — 

 



  

ARGUMENT — NOVEMBER SESSION 
  

  

Monday, October 29 
  

(1) 
89-1332 McCNARY v. HAT REFUGEE 

Conn Dist. Oh. haoy, Claallerss alloging 

pa Hem 6) INE violas 4 Sl Cp Bs 
A. Sid rs, 1 98¢ Jnaw. Koon fet ? (2): be Junssds 

89-1598 EASTERN ae v. FLOYD 
W vention 

Dogs Ri bo non phusicl [odd 

(3) such an 
89-1149 GROGAN CARER w 

wid & Ho Shudand 
a 

(4) Saga a Act 

89-1436 UNITED STATES v. R. 

ENTERPRISES 
Muc) Grol Prove rebames i ali 
1 butinosy Uecads S a Subpomc 

ups Jecum ? 
Tuesday, October 30 
  

(5) 
89-1391) RUST v. SULLIVAN 

89-1392) NEW YORK v. SULLIVAN 

] To -— wr ur 
we Wulo bens Prolab ovum Co 

Bumily Plasma Clinics Ve cobs TitoX fupds 
(6) um mTtlohgm 

89-7370 GOZLON-PERETZ v. UNITED 

Wd « Fo oh edtta 4 Xo prvisuin 
foverniu, itm vised pelpae “ome fry anttim 

(7) 
89-680 rt a oi DI T.'V. GEORGIA 

x hostni idiog ees X wl (bry € ae ) tadia ] 

la ten Fond og « SET 10, P 
Wednesday, October 31 

(8) 
89-7024 McCLESKEY Vv. ZANT 

  

(9) 
89-1555 DENNIS v. HIGGINS 

Je dain shite dispin. dsasst infostets 
conan) vii Gon Grmmance. (apis 

Suite vei wud, YU KC §19837 Des 
Comuttry Clase Pitch edie] gh” 

Fri, pad ivhjunsy 

Monday, November 5 

(1) 
89-1452) MOBI11..0JIl, v. UNITED DIST. 
89-1453) FERC v. UNITED DIST. 

{(Consol.-~ 1 hour) 

  

(2) 
89-1217 LEHNERT v. FERRIS FACULTY 

{3) 
Wadd 4 

89-7272 HARMELIN v. MICHIGAN 

(4) 
89-1008 OWEN v. OWEN 

Tuesday, November 6 
  

(5) 
87-6796 FORD v. GEORGIA 

(6) 
88-1847 FORD MOTOR CREDIT v. FLA. 

DEPT. OF REVENUE 

(7) 
89-5916 DEMAREST v. MANSPEAKER 

Wednesday, November 7 
  

(8) 
89-5961 PARKER Vv. DUGGER 

(9) 
89-1646 UNITED STATES v. SMITH 

(September 26, 1990)