Skip to content

White v. Woodall

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
12-794 6th Cir. Dec 11, 2013 Apr 23, 2014 6-3 Scalia OT 2013

Holding: Because the Kentucky Supreme Court"s rejection of respondent"s Fifth Amendment claim was not objectively unreasonable, the Sixth Circuit erred in granting the writ of habeas.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on April 23, 2014. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor joined.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
12/26/2012Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 4, 2013)
12/26/2012Appendix of Randy White, Warden filed.
01/25/2013Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 6, 2013.
03/06/2013Brief of respondent Robert Keith Woodall in opposition filed.
03/06/2013Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Robert Keith Woodall.
03/20/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
03/25/2013Reply of petitioner Randy White, Warden filed. (Distributed)
04/09/2013Record Requested .
04/10/2013Record received for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucy are electronically filed (Not on PACER)
04/16/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.
04/26/2013Record received from U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Paducah (2 Boxes).
04/30/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.
05/20/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 23, 2013.
05/28/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 30, 2013.
06/03/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 6, 2013.
06/10/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 13, 2013.
06/17/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.
06/25/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2013.
06/27/2013Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
06/27/2013Petition GRANTED.
07/12/2013The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 11, 2013.
07/18/2013Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent Robert Keith Woodall.
07/24/2013Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.
09/11/2013Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent.
09/11/2013Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
09/11/2013Brief of petitioner Randy White, Warden filed.
09/17/2013SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday December 11, 2013.
09/17/2013CIRCULATED
09/17/2013Brief amici curiae of Arizona and Thirteen Other States filed. (Distributed)
09/18/2013Brief amicus curiae of Texas filed. (Distributed)
09/18/2013Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)
10/01/2013The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 12, 2013.
10/07/2013Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent GRANTED. Laurence E. Komp, Esquire, of Manchester, Missouri, is appointed to serve as counsel for the respondent in this case.
11/12/2013Brief of respondent Robert Keith Woodall filed. (Distributed)
11/19/2013Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)
11/19/2013Brief amicus curiae of Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office filed. (Distributed)
12/03/2013Reply of petitioner Randy White, Warden filed. (Distributed)
12/11/2013Argued. For petitioner: Susan R. Lenz, Assistant Attorney General, Frankfort, Ky. For respondent: Laurence E. Komp, Manchester, Mo. (Appointed by this Court.)
04/23/2014Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.
05/19/2014Petition for Rehearing filed.
05/27/2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 12, 2014.
06/16/2014Rehearing DENIED.
06/16/2014JUDGMENT ISSUED.
06/17/2014Record returned for U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.

Issue: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief on the trial court’s failure to provide a no-adverse-inference instruction even though the Supreme Court has not “clearly established” that such an instruction is required in a capital penalty phase when a non-testifying defendant has pleaded guilty to the crimes and aggravating circumstances; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit violated the harmless error standard in”Brecht v. Abrahamson”in ruling that the absence of a no-adverse-interference instruction was not harmless in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt and in the face of a guilty pleas to the crimes and aggravators.