Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 2/20/2013

Johnson v. Williams

Citations

  • 133 S. Ct. 1088
  • 185 L. Ed. 2d 105
  • 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1610
  • 568 U.S. 289

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2013 United States Supreme Court case

Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, for purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 , when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant's claims but does not expressly address a federal claim , a federal _habeas _ court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.[1] [2]

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_v._Williams&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) provides that a federal habeas court may not grant relief to a state prisoner whose claim has already been "adjudicated on the merits in State court," unless the claim's adjudication resulted in a decision that was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by [this] Court" or "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding."

A California jury convicted Tara Sheneva Williams of first-degree murder . On direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal , she claimed that the trial court's questioning and dismissal of a juror during deliberations violated both the Sixth Amendment and California law. In holding that the juror had been properly dismissed for bias, the California Court of Appeal quoted the definition of "impartiality" from _United States v. Wood _, but it did not expressly acknowledge that it was deciding a Sixth Amendment issue. The California Supreme Court remanded for further consideration in light of its intervening People v. Cleveland decision, which held that a trial court abused its discretion by dismissing for failure to deliberate a juror who appeared to disagree with the rest of the jury about the evidence. Reaffirming its prior decision on remand, the State Court of Appeal discussed Cleveland, again quoted Wood, and failed to expressly acknowledge that Williams had raised a federal claim.

When Williams later sought federal habeas relief, the federal District Court applied §2254's deferential standard of review for claims adjudicated on the merits and denied relief. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the State Court of Appeal had not considered Williams' Sixth Amendment claim. The court then reviewed that claim de novo and held that the questioning and dismissal of the juror violated the Sixth Amendment.

Opinion of the court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_v._Williams&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the court")
]

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on February 20, 2013.[1]

Subsequent developments

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_v._Williams&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Subsequent developments")
]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_v._Williams&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. Jump up to: 1 2 Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013).
  2. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (February 20, 2013). "Opinion recap: Silence speaks a little louder" . SCOTUSblog. Retrieved August 26, 2025.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_v._Williams&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")
]

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court . As a work of the U.S. federal government , the text is in the **public domain **.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_v._Williams&oldid=1351979427 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Search

Search

Johnson v. Williams

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that “the Ninth Circuit declined to apply the deferential standard of review” mandated by AEDPA
  • establishing a presumption of adjudication on the merits of the federal claim when the state-law rule is “at least as protective as the federal standard”
  • requiring federal courts to presume, absent contrary evidence, that a denial of relief is made “on the merits”
  • applying the Richter merits-presumption to state court decision addressing some, but not all, claims
  • “[T]here are instances in which a state court may simply regard a claim as too insubstantial to merit discussion.”
  • “[A] state court may not regard a fleeting reference to a provision of the Federal Constitution or federal precedent as sufficient to raise a separate federal claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Scalia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

255 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Johnson v. Williams

48 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.