Davis v. Goodson
James E. Davis v. John W. Goodson
Opinion of the Court
Sup. Ct. Ark. Certio-rari denied.
Concurrence
Justice Stevens,
concurring.
Because the petition for a writ of certiorari does not affirmatively show that a federal question was presented to or decided by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, I believe the Court correctly denies the writ.
Dissent
Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
Petitioner was summarily held in contempt for advising his client that he had a privilege not to submit to a breath-analysis test. In citing petitioner for contempt, the judge made no finding that the advice was given in bad faith. Given the absence of such a finding, I would grant certiorari to decide whether petitioner’s conviction and sentence for contempt *1155 are constitutionally infirm in light of this Court’s decision in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449 (1975), where we held that “an advocate is not subject to the penalty of contempt for advising his client, in good faith, to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in any proceeding embracing the power to compel testimony.” Id., at 468 . See also id., at 472 (Stewart, J., concurring in result); In re Watts, 190 U. S. 1, 29 (1903) (“if an attorney acts in good faith and in the honest belief that his advice is well founded and in the just interests of his client, he cannot be held liable for error in judgment”).
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
459 U.S. 1154 103 S.Ct. 798 74 L.Ed.2d 1002
James E. DAVIS v. John W. GOODSON
No. 82-490
Supreme Court of the United States
January 17, 1983
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Justice STEVENS, concurring in the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.
Because the petition for a writ of certiorari does not affirmatively show that a federal question was presented to or decided by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, I believe the Court correctly denies the writ.
Justice MARSHALL, dissenting.
1
Petitioner was summarily held in contempt for advising his client that he had a privilege not to submit to a breathalyzer test. In citing petitioner for contempt, the judge made no finding that the advice was given in bad faith. Given the absence of such a finding, I would grant certiorari to decide whether petitioner's conviction and sentence for contempt are constitutionally infirm in light of this Court's decision in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 , 95 S.Ct. 584 , 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975), where we held that "an advocate is not subject to the penalty of contempt for advising his client, in good faith, to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in any proceeding embracing the power to compel testimony." Id., at 468 , 95 S.Ct., at 596 . See also id., at 472 , 95 S.Ct., at 598 (Stewart, J., concurring in the result); In re Watts, 190 U.S. 1, 29 , 23 S.Ct. 718, 725 , 47 L.Ed. 933 (1903) ("if an attorney acts in good faith and in the honest belief that his advice is well founded and in the just interests of his client, he cannot be held liable for error in judgment").
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(Fact that defendant shot and killed one person, then shot and seriously wounded two others was sufficient)
-
(federal courts have an obligation to ascertain whether the state courts found the relevant facts and applied the correct standard of law.)
-
(defendant killed one victim, shot and critically injured two others)
Cited by 37 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals5
- Federal District Courts1
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- State Highest Courts5
- State Appellate Courts25
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.