DAVIS
v.
GOODSON
Justice Stevens,
concurring.
Because the petition for a writ of certiorari does not affirmatively show that a federal question was presented to or decided by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, I believe the Court correctly denies the writ.
Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
Petitioner was summarily held in contempt for advising his client that he had a privilege not to submit to a breath-analysis test. In citing petitioner for contempt, the judge made no finding that the advice was given in bad faith. Given the absence of such a finding, I would grant certiorari to decide whether petitioner’s conviction and sentence for contempt are constitutionally infirm in light of this Court’s decision in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449 (1975), where we held that “an advocate is not subject to the penalty of contempt for advising his client, in good faith, to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in any proceeding embracing the power to compel testimony.” Id., at 468. See also id., at 472 (Stewart, J., concurring in result); In re Watts, 190 U. S. 1, 29 (1903) (“if an attorney acts in good faith and in the honest belief that his advice is well founded and in the just interests of his client, he cannot be held liable for error in judgment”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chamberlain v. Celeste, 729 F.2d 1071 (6th Cir. 1984)…(d) because the presumption is not applicable where petitioner establishes “that the material facts were not adequately developed at the State court hearing.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(3). Cf. Fowler v. Jago, 683 F. 2d 983, 988 (6th Cir.1982) cert. denied 459 U.S. 1154, 103 S.Ct. 798, 74 L.Ed.2d 1002 (1983) (federal courts have an obligation to ascertain whether the state courts found the relevant facts and applied the correct standard of law.) The “material facts”, suggests Chamberlain, is the underlying plea agr…
Authorities Cited
- Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1975)
- In re Watts and Sachs, 190 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1903)