GARRISON, WARDEN, ET AL.
v.
HUDSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a habeas corpus case concerning a murder conviction, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and ordered release of the prisoner unless he was retried within a reasonable time, with retrial scheduled before the Supreme Court could normally act on a certiorari petition. Chief Justice Burger granted a stay of the retrial order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction to review the appeals court's decision, finding that the loss of certiorari review would cause irreparable harm to the state while a six-week delay would not unreasonably burden the prisoner who had been incarcerated since 1977.
[1] A stay of a lower court's order is warranted when the normal course of appellate review might otherwise cause the case to become moot.
[2] Foreclosure of certiorari review by the Supreme Court can constitute irreparable harm, justifying a stay.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Chief Justice Burger, Circuit Justice.
On June 29, 1984, applicants, the Warden and Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In respondent’s second federal appeal concerning his murder conviction and life sentence, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina and directed that a writ of habeas corpus issue to release respondent from confinement if applicants fail to retry him within a reasonable time. Judgment order reported at 732 F. 2d 150 (1984).
The District Court then ordered retrial prior to August 18, 1984. Applicants challenge the Court of Appeals’ decision in their certiorari petition, No. 83-2144, and seek to stay the scheduled retrial until this Court acts on the petition for certiorari. Hudson filed a response to the application earlier today asserting that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct. The petition for certiorari would not in the normal course be acted on by this Court before the start of the October 1984 Term — some six weeks after the scheduled retrial. See this Court’s Rule 22.4. Retrial of respondent by August 18, 1984, prior to the “first Monday in October” would effectively deprive this Court of jurisdiction to consider the petition for writ of certiorari. Applicants assert that their right to a review of the holding of the Court of Appeals will be extinguished if they are compelled to retry respondent on or about August 18. When, as in this case, “the normal course of appellate review might otherwise cause the case to become moot,” In re Bart, 82 S. Ct. 675, 676, 7 L. Ed. 2d 767, 768 (1962) (Warren, C. J., in chambers), issuance of a stay is warranted. The balance of harm favors applicants; foreclosure of certiorari review by this Court would impose irreparable harm upon applicants.
In contrast, a 6-week delay of the scheduled retrial would not impose an unreasonable delay on respondent who has remained in confinement under a life sentence since 1977.
I therefore grant the application for a stay of the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, pending disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari in No. 83-2144.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (U.S. 2013)…f the treaty and harm the children it is meant to protect. If these cases were to become moot upon return, courts would be more likely to grant stays as a matter of course, to prevent the loss of any right to appeal. See, e. g., Garrison v. Hudson, 468 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1984) (Burger, C. J., in chambers) (“When . . . the normal course of appellate review might otherwise cause the case to become moot, issuance of a stay is warranted” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nicolson v. Pappalardo, Ci…
-
Araneta v. United States, 478 U.S. 1301 (U.S. 1986)…ropriately conditioned. Applicants clearly will suffer irreparable injury if the Court of Appeals is right about the likelihood of prosecution and the inability of the District Court’s restrictive order to prevent disclosure. Cf. Garrison v. Hudson, 468 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1984). If that secrecy order is enforceable under all circumstances, it may afford applicants protection should they later be extradited for trial in the Philippines; however, that will [*1305] depend, in part, on what protection is afforded…