Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973), was a 1973 United States Supreme Court case concerning criminal procedure and collateral attacks on criminal convictions. The majority opinion, authored by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, held that when claims of unconstitutional jury discrimination are brought on postconviction collateral review, they are subject to the timeliness requirement outlined in Rule 12(b)(2) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule required that federal criminal defendants raise "defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment" in pretrial motions, rather than in postconviction proceedings; it also stated that if such defenses were not raised in pretrial motions, this constituted a "waiver" of the right to raise them in the future.[1] Davis is now recognized by legal scholars as part of a gradual erosion of the broad availability of federal habeas corpus relief that the Supreme Court originally created in its 1963 decision in Fay v. Noia.[2][3][4]
| Davis v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 20, 1973 Decided April 17, 1973 | |
| Full case name | Clifford H. Davis, Petitioner, v. United States |
| Citations | 411 U.S. 233 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Davis v. United States, 455 F.2d 919 (CA5 1972) |
| Holding | |
| 1. The waiver standard set forth in Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 12(b)(2) governs an untimely claim of grand jury discrimination, not only during the criminal proceeding, but also later on collateral review. Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U. S. 341, followed; Kaufman v. United States, 394 U. S. 217, distinguished. 2. The District Court, in the light of the record in this case, did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner relief from the application of the waiver provision. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Douglas, Brennan |
References
edit- ^ "Procedure: Habeas Corpus: Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (1973)". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 64 (4): 434. 1974-01-01.
- ^ Guttenberg, Jack (1984-01-01). "Federal Habeas Corpus, Constitutional Rights, and Procedural Forfeitures: The Delicate Balance". Hofstra Law Review. 12 (3).
- ^ "ArtIII.S1.6.9 Habeas Review". Constitution Annotated. Retrieved 2024-07-31.
- ^ Rosenberg, Yale (1978-01-01). "Jettisoning Fay v. Noia: Procedural Defaults by Reasonably Incompetent Counsel". Minnesota Law Review. Retrieved 2024-08-01.
External links
edit- Text of Davis v. United States is available from: Cornell Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |