Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard - Significance, Background, A Protected Life Interest On Death Row, Safeguarding Against Irresponsible Clemency, Impact
Ohio Adult Parole Authority, et al.
That Ohio clemency procedures violated a death-row inmate's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Jeffrey S. Sutton
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
David H. Bodiker
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas
John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
25 March 1998
Reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Held that neither the Fifth Amendment nor the Due Process Clause were violated by the state of Ohio's clemency procedures.
- Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1 (1979).
- Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458 (1981).
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985).
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993).
Radelet, Michael L., and Barbara A. Zsembik. "Executive Clemency in Post-Furman Capital Cases." University of Richmond Law Review, Vol. 27, winter 1993.
- American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org/court/ohiovwoodard.html
- USA Today, December 8, 1997; March 26, 1998.
- Ohio v. Robinette - Significance, Impact, Further Readings
- O.J. Simpson Trials: 1995 1996-97 - Criminal Trial, Civil Trial, The Infamous Chase, The Trial Of The Century Begins, Kato Kaelin Testifies - The Verdict
- Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard - Significance
- Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard - Background
- Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard - A Protected Life Interest On Death Row
- Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard - Safeguarding Against Irresponsible Clemency
- Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard - Impact
- Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard - Statistics On Clemency
- Other Free Encyclopedias