Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:


Woodford v. Garceau

Docket No.: 01-1862
Certiorari Granted: Oct 1 2002
Argued: January 21, 2003
Decided: March 25, 2003


28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus), Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Administrative Procedure, Civil Procedure, Death Penalty, Due Process, Equal Protection Clause, Fair Housing Act, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, antitrust, disparate impact, habeas, habeas corpus, judicial review, murder, stare decisis

PartyNames: Jeanne Woodford, Warden v. Robert Frederick Garceau
Petitioner: Jeanne Woodford, Warden
Respondent: Robert Frederick Garceau

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: CA 9, 275 F.3d 769. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. 320 (1997), this Court held that the Antiterrorismand Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) (28 U.S.C. ยง 2241, etseq.) did not apply to cases which commenced prior to the AEDPA ' s April 24, 1996, effective date. Thecircuits are split as to when a capital case commences for purposes of triggering the AEDPA. With one exception, all the circui ts to consider the issue have found the AEDPA applies if the actual petition was fi led on or after the AEDPA's effective date. However, in the Ninth Circuit, the AEDPA does not apply to a federal petition filedon or after April 24, 1996, if motions for appointment of counsel and stay of
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court Docket

Jeanne Woodford, Warden
Robert Frederick Garceau
538 U.S. 202 (2003)
Consideration Limited:

Limited to question 1 presented by the petition.


Is a federal habeas petition, which was filed after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 even though a stay and counsel were sought prior to that date, "pending" for the purposes of Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320?

Woodford v. Garceau

January 21, 2003

Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 6 votes for Woodford, 3 vote(s) against

Woodford v. Garceau
Case Documents

1Opinion in Woodford v. Garceau
2Opinion in Woodford v. Garceau
Additional documents for this case are pending review.