Hilton v. Braunskill
481 U.S. 770 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In deciding whether to release a state prisoner who has been granted a writ of habeas corpus pending the state's appeal, a federal court must apply the traditional four-factor test governing stays of civil judgments, which includes considering the state's likelihood of success on appeal, the risk of irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, and the public interest, including the petitioner's potential danger to the community.
Facts:
- In January 1981, Dana Braunskill was convicted in a New Jersey state court of sexual assault and unlawful possession of a weapon.
- He was subsequently sentenced to an eight-year prison term.
- Braunskill consistently maintained his innocence, claiming it was a case of mistaken identity.
- At his original trial, his defense counsel failed to provide timely notice of an alibi witness.
- As a result of this procedural failure, the trial court prohibited the alibi witness from testifying on Braunskill's behalf.
Procedural Posture:
- Dana Braunskill filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- The District Court granted the petition, ordering Braunskill's release unless the State of New Jersey afforded him a new trial within 30 days.
- The State moved the District Court to stay its order pending appeal.
- The District Court denied the State's motion for a stay, reasoning that circuit precedent limited its inquiry to the risk of flight, which the State had not demonstrated.
- The State then filed a motion for a stay of the release order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals denied the motion.
- The State (Hilton, as petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' denial of the stay, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 23(c) and (d) limit a federal court's consideration to only the petitioner's risk of flight when deciding whether to stay an order releasing a successful state habeas petitioner pending the government's appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure do not restrict a court's discretion to only the petitioner's risk of flight; rather, courts should apply the general standards governing stays of civil judgments. While Rule 23(c) creates a presumption of release for a successful habeas petitioner, that presumption may be overcome. Because habeas proceedings are civil in nature, it is logical to apply the traditional four-factor test for a stay: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. In this context, relevant considerations include the state's prospects of success on appeal, the petitioner's risk of flight, the danger the petitioner may pose to the community, and the state's interest in continuing custody and rehabilitation balanced against the petitioner's substantial interest in release.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The court's discretion should be limited because the majority's novel approach allows federal courts to usurp the role of state courts and undermine the purpose of habeas corpus. Matters of pretrial release and dangerousness are traditionally issues of state concern to be decided by state courts under state law, not by federal courts creating ad hoc rules. The majority trivializes the district court's finding of a constitutional violation; once the writ is granted, the conviction is null and void, and continued detention based on that infirm conviction amounts to punishment without due process. This approach erodes the fundamental purpose of the writ of habeas corpus, which is to provide protection against illegal custody.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the discretion of federal courts when a state appeals a grant of habeas corpus. It replaces a bright-line rule focused on flight risk, used by some circuits, with a flexible, multi-factor balancing test imported from general civil litigation. By explicitly allowing courts to consider a petitioner's 'danger to the community,' the ruling makes it more difficult for successful habeas petitioners to secure immediate release, thereby strengthening the state's position during the appellate process. This precedent aligns the analysis for post-habeas release more closely with that of pretrial detention, despite the petitioner's distinct legal status as an individual whose conviction has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court.
Unlock the full brief for Hilton v. Braunskill