Woodard v. Hutchins

discussing abusiveness question without regard to whether determination was debatable among jurists of reason and granting motion to vacate | Powell, J., joined by Burger, C. J., BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., concurring in order vacating stay | Powell, J., joined by Burger, C. J., Blackmun, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ., concurring in order vacating stay | Powell, J., joined by Burger, C.J., Blackmun, Rehnquist and O'Connor, J.J. concurring in the per curiam order to vacate the stay | Powell, J., joined by Burger, C.J., Blackmun, Rehnquist and O’Connor, J.J. concurring in the per curiam order to vacate the stay | Powell, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ., concurring | no explanation as to why an issue was not raised in the first petition constituted an abuse of the writ | abuse of writ in belated raising of new theory of claim on basis of recent scientific knowledge | POWELL, J., joined by BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., concurring | Powell, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Blackmun, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ., concurring | "A pattern seems to be developing in capital cases of multiple review in which claims that could have been presented years ago are brought forward—often in a piecemeal fashion—only after the execution date is set or becomes imminent." | Powell, J., joined by Burger, C.J., and Blackmun, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, JJ., concurring | affirmative evidence of deliberateness unnecessary when petitioner represented by counsel | “A pattern seems to be developing in capital cases of multiple review in which claims that could have been presented years ago are brought forward — often in a piecemeal fashion — only after the execution date is set or becomes imminent.” | three claims “could and should have been raised in” the first petition | "A pattern seems to be developing in capital cases of multiple review in which claims that could have been presented years ago are brought forward — often in a piecemeal fashion — only after the execution date is set or becomes imminent." | "A pattern seems to be developing in capital cases of multiple review in which claims that could have been presented years ago are brought forward — often in a piecemeal fashion — only after the execution date is set or becomes imminent." | "There is no affirmative evidence that the claims were deliberately withheld. But Hutchins has had counsel throughout the various phases of the case, and no explanation has been made as to why they were not raised until the very eve of the execution date." | “A pattern seems to be developing in capital cases of multiple review in which claims that could have been presented years ago are brought forward – often in a piecemeal fashion – only after the execution date is set or becomes imminent.” | “There is no affirmative evidence that the claims were deliberately withheld. But Hutchins has had counsel throughout the various phases of the case, and no explanation has been made as to why they were not raised until the very eve of the execution date.” | “There is no affirmative evidence that the claims were deliberately withheld. But Hutchins has had counsel throughout the various phases of the case, and no explanation has been made as to why they were not raised until the very even of the execution date.” | five Justices concurring in per curiam opinion | five Justices concurring in per curiam opinion | five Justices concurring in per curiam opinion