Case law · Highest court · Federal

Williams v. New York

Decided
June 6, 1949
Docket
671
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 2,766 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Martin Andrew Stieritz v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

What later courts said

  • concluding that "[b]ecause the State's sentencing procedure did not comply with the Sixth Amendment, petitioner's sentence is invalid" — United States v. Hammoud (2004)
  • recognizing that sentencing judge is “not confined to the narrow issue of guilt” in determining punishment, but must act on “the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics” — United States v. Broxmeyer (2012)
  • concluding that “[bjecause the State’s sentencing procedure did not comply with the Sixth Amendment, petitioner’s sentence is invalid” — United States v. Hammoud (2004)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.

A jury in a New York state court found appellant guilty of murder in the first degree.[1] The jury recommended life imprisonment, but the trial judge imposed sentence of death.[2]- In giving his reasons for imposing the death sentence the judge discussed in open court the evidence upon.which the jury had convicted stating that this evidence had been considered in the light of additional information obtained through the court’s “Probation Department, and through other sources.” Consideration of [*243] this additional information was pursuant to § 482 of New York Criminal Code which provides: . . Before rendering judgment or pronouncing sentence the court shall .cause the defendant’s previous criminal record to be submitted to it, including any reports that may have been made as a result of a mental, phychiatric [sic] or physical examination of such person, and may seek' any information that will aid the court in determining the proper treatment of such defendant.”

The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the conviction and sentence over the' contention that as construed and applied the controlling penal statutes are in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States “in that the sentence of death was based upon information supplied .by witnesses with whom the accused had not been confronted and as to whom he had no opportunity for cross-examination .or rebuttal . . . .” 298 N. Y. 803, 804, 83 N. E. 2d 698, 699. Because the statutes were sustained over this constitutional challenge the case is here on appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). . .

Statutes cited

Cite this

Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.