• Last updated on November 11, 2022

The Supreme Court limited the habeas corpus appeals that could be made to it.

Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.,Powell, Lewis F., Jr.;Stone v. Powell[Stone v. Powell] wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority. Congress had allowed state convicts to petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging their state convictions, despite the general legal presumption that a matter once decided cannot be relitigated. In Brown v. Allen[case]Brown v. Allen[Brown v. Allen] (1953), the Supreme Court had ruled that a state convict could obtain a federal court hearing on any federal constitutional issue. Powell’s opinion reinterpreted Brown v. Allen and held that it did not apply to Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) questions if the state had provided a full, fair hearing on the issue. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall, dissented as did Justice Byron R. White separately. Critics’ fears that habeas corpus would be placed in jeopardy because of this decision were not realized because this ruling was not expanded.Habeas corpus[Habeas corpus]Fourth Amendment;Stone v. Powell[Stone v. Powell]

Due process, procedural

Exclusionary rule

Fourteenth Amendment

Fourth Amendment

Habeas corpus

Mapp v. Ohio

Maryland v. Buie

Search warrant requirement

Categories: History Content