CJLF: Briefs: Williams v. Taylor Brief - Summary of facts and case (File 1 of 6)


	Go to:	Argument - Part I	Case Menu	Briefs Menu

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF)⁽¹⁾ is a non-profit California corporation organized to participate in litigation relating to the criminal justice system as it affects the public interest. CJLF seeks to bring the constitutional protections of the accused into balance with the rights of the victim and of society to rapid, efficient, and reliable determination of guilt and swift execution of punishment.

This case involves the proper interpretation of Congress's landmark reform of habeas corpus law in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). This law, if properly implemented, will greatly reduce unnecessary delay in the enforcement of capital punishment and reduce the number of correct criminal judgments erroneously overturned on federal habeas. These changes would advance the rights of victims and society which CJLF was formed to protect.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND CASE

Fourteen years ago, Terry Williams robbed elderly Harris Stone, striking him on the chest and back with a mattock, killing him. Williams v. Commonwealth, 360 S. E. 2d 361, 363-364 (Va. 1987). A few months later, he committed "a vicious and brutal malicious wounding of an elderly lady . . . that caused extensive brain damage and left her a 'vegetable.' " Id., at 370. He had an extensive record of other crimes. Ibid.

Following affirmance of his death sentence on direct appeal, there was a state habeas proceeding. The principal claim was ineffective assistance of counsel in the penalty phase for failure to present evidence of a " 'deprived and abused upbringing' " and omitting a character witness. Williams v. Warden, 487 S. E. 2d 194, 197 (Va. 1997). The Virginia Supreme Court rejected the claim, finding that petitioner had not established "a 'reasonable probability' that the result of the proceeding would have been different, nor any probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id., at 199.

On federal habeas, the District Court granted relief, but the Fourth Circuit reversed the grant. Williams v. Taylor, 163 F. 3d 860, 862-863 (CA4 1998). Applying 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1), the court held that the state court's assessment of reasonable probability was not unreasonable. 163 F. 3d, at 868.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The new statutory standard is a rule of prior adjudication, i.e., a modified rule of res judicata. It is not a codification or modification of Teague v. Lane, and that case still applies as an independent limitation. The courts of appeals which have addressed the question have unanimously held that Wright v. West-type claims, applying settled legal standards to case-specific facts, are evaluated under the "unreasonable application" branch of the statute. The correct method for applying the statute is largely that outlined by the Eleventh Circuit in Neelley v. Nagle. The statute is constitutional beyond serious question and precludes relief in this case.


	Beginning of this file	Argument - Part I	Case Menu

1. Rule 37.6 Statement: This brief was written entirely by counsel for amicus, as listed on the cover, and not by counsel for any party. No outside contributions were made to the preparation or submission of this brief.

Both parties have given written consent to the filing of this brief.

August 1999