SCOTUS Briefs

2002 Supreme Court term

JEANNE WOODFORD, WARDEN v. ROBERT FREDERICK GARCEAU.

Dockets 01-1862Argued
Argued
January 21, 2003
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

The case, Jeanne Woodford, Warden v. Robert Frederick Garceau, concerns whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) should apply retroactively to the respondent's case.

According to Petitioner (Janis S. McLean), according to Petitioner (Janis S. McLean), the petitioner argues that the decisions of the five circuit courts are correct.

According to Respondent (Lynne S. Coffin), according to Respondent (Lynne S. Coffin), the respondent argues that the issue is not the harm to Garceau but whether the Court should follow precedent as the State requests.

The procedural history includes a stay before counsel was appointed, a subsequent 120‑day stay after counsel was appointed, and the filing of a Specification of Non‑frivolous Issues.

According to Justice, during oral argument, the Court asked the parties questions such as “Right?” and “How?”.

Background and question before the Court

A stay was entered before counsel was appointed; after counsel was appointed, a 120‑day stay was entered, and the parties filed a Specification of Non‑frivolous Issues.

According to Justice, the Court asked how AEDPA should be applied in this case.

What each side argues

Petitioner (Jeanne Woodford, Warden)

According to Petitioner (Janis S. McLean), according to Petitioner (Janis S. McLean), the petitioner believes that the decisions of the five circuit courts are correct.

According to Ms. McLean, the petitioner argues that AEDPA does not apply to the pre‑application period and therefore cannot affect Garceau’s case.

Respondent (Robert Frederick Garceau)

According to Respondent (Lynne S. Coffin), according to Respondent (Lynne S. Coffin), the respondent contends that the central issue is whether the Court should follow precedent as the State asks, not the potential harm to Garceau.

According to Ms. Coffin, the respondent argues that Congress intended AEDPA not to affect everyone immediately, implying limited retroactive application.

According to Ms. Coffin, the respondent asserts that AEDPA should not be applied retroactively to Garceau, citing precedent such as Lindh.

According to Ms. Coffin, the respondent maintains that the correct result for Garceau aligns with the interests of other capital defendants.

What happened at oral argument

The parties discussed a prior stay, the appointment of counsel, and a subsequent 120‑day stay before filing a Specification of Non‑frivolous Issues.

The petitioner argued that the five circuit courts’ decisions are correct and that AEDPA does not apply to the pre‑application period.

The respondent contended that the issue is the appropriateness of following precedent, that Congress did not intend immediate AEDPA coverage for everyone, and that AEDPA should not apply retroactively to Garceau.

According to Justice, the Court asked the parties questions such as “Right?” and “How?” and inquired about the application of AEDPA at the threshold stage.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

If AEDPA were applied retroactively, it could affect Garceau and potentially many other capital defendants.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • bdc3417dc5c8a45d2f20-r1-5f6c3f298dad478f.pdforal argument transcript
    Archived copy

Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.