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

 

Walker v. Martin

Docket No.: 09-996
Certiorari Granted: 06/21/10
Argued: November 29, 2010
Decided: 02/23/11

Topics:

Fourth Amendment, Supremacy Clause, disparate treatment, habeas, habeas corpus, murder, patent, rule of reason

PartyNames: James Walker, Warden, et al. v. Charles W. Martin
Petitioner: James Walker, Warden, et al.
Respondent: Charles W. Martin

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 357 Fed.Appx. 793
Supreme Court Docket

James Walker, Warden, et al.
v.
Charles W. Martin
Question Presented:

Under state law in California, a prisoner may be barred from collaterally attacking his conviction when the prisoner "substantially delayed" filing his habeas petition. In federal habeas corpus proceedings, is such a state law "inadequate" to support a procedural bar because (1) the federal court believes that the rule is vague and (2) the state failed to prove that its courts "consistently" exercised their discretion when applying the rule in other cases?

Question:

In a federal habeas corpus proceeding, is a state law barring a prisoner from attacking his conviction an insufficient procedural bar because the federal court thinks the rule is (1) vague and (2) the state failed to prove that the bar is consistently applied?

Walker v. Martin
ORAL ARGUMENT

11/29/10

Listen to Oral Argument in Walker v. Martin
Holding: reversed
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)