1 minute read

Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard

Significance, Background, A Protected Life Interest On Death Row, Safeguarding Against Irresponsible Clemency, Impact

Petitioners

Ohio Adult Parole Authority, et al.

Respondent

Eugene Woodard

Petitioners' Claim

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

Justices Dissenting

John Paul Stevens

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

25 March 1998

Decision

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.

Related Cases

  • 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).

Sources

Radelet, Michael L., and Barbara A. Zsembik. "Executive Clemency in Post-Furman Capital Cases." University of Richmond Law Review, Vol. 27, winter 1993.

Further Readings

  • American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org/court/ohiovwoodard.html
  • USA Today, December 8, 1997; March 26, 1998.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to Present