October Term 2003 · Docket 03-6821
Can a prisoner use federal court to challenge a state death sentence after state remedies fail?
David Nelson seeks federal review of his Alabama death sentence. The state argues he must exhaust state options first.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Bryan Stevenson argued for Nelson. He stated no state remedy exists for Nelson. He rejected the state claim that state options remain open.
Donal Campbell argued for the state. He claimed Nelson can still seek a new death warrant. He noted the previous warrant expired after a stay.
chief_justice_rehnquist
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 43-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
David Nelson faces execution in Alabama. He claims his state court process violated his rights. The state insists he must finish state appeals before federal courts can act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 21-39
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 29, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 43-47
What each side wants
Nelson wants federal courts to review his death sentence now.
Campbell wants Nelson to finish all state appeals first.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 21-39
What each side says
Nelson argues state remedies are currently unavailable to him.
Campbell argues Nelson can still seek a new death warrant in state court.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 21-39
What the justices asked
Does Nelson have any remaining state court options?
Can federal courts intervene before state appeals conclude?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 43-47
Why it matters
This case defines when federal courts can review state death sentences. It shapes the balance between state and federal judicial power. It affects how prisoners access federal protections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 21-39
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 43-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 21-39
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.