October Term 2006 · Docket 05-1575

Can a defendant waive the right to present mitigating evidence in a death penalty case?

The dispute centers on whether a defendant can voluntarily waive the constitutional right to present mitigating evidence during sentencing.

Official caption
Schriro v. Landrigan
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Cattani argued the Ninth Circuit's rejection of the state court's factual finding was improper under AEDPA.

    Mr. Verrilli clarified the scope of the waiver argument before the Court.

    Justice Stevens questioned whether the Constitution requires a procedure to ensure a voluntary waiver of rights.

    Justice Scalia noted the defendant confirmed in open court that he did not want mitigating evidence introduced.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case examines the validity of a defendant's waiver of mitigating evidence. the side that brought the case argues the lower court erred in rejecting the state court's factual finding. the opposing side contends the waiver was not voluntary or informed.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 9, 2007.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Supreme Court to affirm the district court's finding that the defendant waived his rights.

the opposing side wants the Supreme Court to reverse the district court's finding and restore the mitigating evidence.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the Ninth Circuit improperly rejected the state court's factual determination under the AEDPA standard.

the opposing side argues the record does not show a voluntary and informed waiver of constitutional rights.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kennedy asked if the district court can only hold a hearing at a specific time.

Justice Scalia asked how the defendant could claim a lack of waiver after confirming in open court that he did not want mitigating evidence introduced.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of a defendant's ability to waive constitutional rights in capital sentencing. It clarifies the standard for reviewing state court factual findings in federal habeas cases. The outcome impacts the procedural rights of defendants facing the death penalty.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON