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

 

Baldwin v. Reese

Docket No.: 02-964
Certiorari Granted: May 27 2003
Argued: December 8, 2003
Decided: March 2, 2004

Topics:

28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus), Judicial Power, Appellate Procedure, Due Process, EPA, Federalism, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, habeas, habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel, murder

PartyNames: George H. Baldwin v. Michael Reese
Petitioner: George H. Baldwin
Respondent: Michael Reese

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: CA 9, 282 F.3d 1184. QUESTION PRESENTED By statute and this Court's caselaw, a state prisoner must exhaust availablestate court remedies on direct appe al or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. This Courthas held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the state's highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one.
Supreme Court Docket

George H. Baldwin
v.
Michael Reese
541 U.S. 27 (2004)
Question:

Federal law requires state prisoners to "fairly present" their allegations of federal constitutional violations to state courts before turning to federal courts. To meet this requirement, do prisoners need to specifically say their claims are federal constitutional claims?

Note:

. CA 9, 282 F.3d 1184. QUESTION PRESENTED By statute and this Court's caselaw, a state prisoner must exhaust availablestate court remedies on direct appe al or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. This Courthas held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the state's highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one. Does a state prisoner "alert" the State' s highest court that he is raising a federal claim when - in that court - he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claimon a federal basis? CERT. GRANTED: 5/27/03

Baldwin v. Reese
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 8, 2003

Holding: reversed
Decision: Decision: 8 votes for Baldwin, 1 vote(s) against
Vote: 8-1
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)