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


Bradshaw v. Stumpf

Docket No.: 04-637
Certiorari Granted: Jan 7 2005
Argued: April 19, 2005
Decided: June 13, 2005


Criminal Procedure, Bill of Rights, Due Process, habeas, habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel, murder

PartyNames: Margaret Bradshaw, Warden v. John David Stumpf
Petitioner: Margaret Bradshaw, Warden
Respondent: John David Stumpf

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Citation: 367 F3d 594
Supreme Court Docket

Margaret Bradshaw, Warden
John David Stumpf
545 U.S. 175 (2005)
Question Presented:

1. Is a representation on the record from defendant's counsel and/or the defendant that defense counsel has explained the elements of the charge to the defendant, sufficient to show the voluntariness of the guilty plea under Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 647 1976)? 2. Does the Due Process Clause require that a defendant's guilty plea be vacated when the State subsequently prosecutes another person in connection with the crime and allegedly presents evidence at the second defendant's trial that is inconsistent with the first defendant's guilt?


(1) Was Stumpf's guilty plea to aggravated murder knowing, voluntary and intelligent? (2) Was his conviction valid, despite the state's use of a theory in the trial of Stumpf's accomplice that was inconsistent with its argument in Stumpf's trial?

Bradshaw v. Stumpf

April 19, 2005

Holding: reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:

Warning: Use of undefined constant caseTitle - assumed 'caseTitle' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/supremec/public_html/supremecourtobserver.com/code/sofunctionsndb.php on line 1147

Bradshaw v. Stumpf
Case Documents

1Opinion in Bradshaw v. Stumpf
2Opinion in Bradshaw v. Stumpf
Additional documents for this case are pending review.