Legal Opinion

Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 25, 1998No. 96-1769PublishedCited by 324 opinions

1Judgment of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist

This ease requires us to resolve two inquiries as to constitutional limitations on state clemency proceedings. The *276first is whether an inmate has a protected life or liberty interest in clemency proceedings, under either Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U. S. 458 (1981), or Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U. S. 387 (1985). The second is whether giving inmates the option of voluntarily participating in an interview as part of the clemency process violates an inmate’s Fifth Amendment rights.

We reaffirm our holding in Dumschat, supra, that “pardon and commutation decisions have not traditionally…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Griffin v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  5. Douglas v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by324 opinions

  1. McKune v. LileSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Mitchell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Kenneth Bernard Rouse v. R.C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North CarolinaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2003
  4. In Re RosenkrantzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Jerry Montgomery v. Rondle Anderson, Warden, Indiana State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001

319 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API