Kimmelman v. Morrison
| Kimmelman v. Morrison | |
|---|---|
| Argued March 5, 1986 Decided June 26, 1986 | |
| Full case name | Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey and John J. Rafferty, Superintendent, Rahway State Prison, v. Neil Morrison |
| Docket no. | 84-1661 |
| Citations | 477 U.S. 365 (more) 106 S. Ct. 2574 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Conviction, 1978, affirmed, State v. Morrison, A-4157-78 (NJ App.Div., Mar. 18, 1981), petition to appeal denied, State v. Morrison, 87 N.J. 368 (1981), postconviction petition denied, (NJ Law Div. 1982), habeas corpus petition granted, Morrison v. Kimmelman, 579 F. Supp. 796 (D. NJ 1984), affirmed in part and remanded in part, 752 F. 2d 918 (3rd Cir. 1985), certiorari granted, 474 U. S. 815 (1985) |
| Subsequent | Habeas corpus petition granted, Morisson v. Kimmelman, 650 F. Supp. 801 (Dist. N.J. 1986) |
| Holding | |
| Stone v. Powell does not prohibit federal review of habeas petitions alleging that a valid Fourth Amendment claim was defaulted in state court due to ineffective assistance of counsel. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, and O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Powell, joined by Burger and Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. IV, VI | |
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his procedurally defaulted Fourth Amendment claim in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.
On the substance of the defendant's habeas corpus petition, the Court affirmed the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which had said that half of Strickland's requirements were satisfied, and the other half would need to be reviewed by a trial court.