Swarthout v. Cooke
131 S. Ct. 859
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Cooke convicted of attempted first-degree murder (1991); indeterminate sentence with parole eligibility.
- Board denied Cooke parole in 2002 based on offense brutality, rehabilitation gaps, misconduct; favorable psych report deemed not credible.
- Cooke petitioned state habeas; state courts denied relief; federal habeas petition followed, Ninth Circuit granted relief против, finding California’s some evidence rule a component of due process.
- Clay convicted of first-degree murder (1978); Governor reviewed his parole in 2003 and found him unsuitable, citing crime gravity, history, and lack of viable post-release plan.
- Clay’s state petitions were denied; federal district court granted relief, Ninth Circuit affirmed, treating Governor’s reliance on the past offense as due process violation; Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Court held federal habeas relief cannot be granted for purely state-law errors and that the minimal due process procedures for parole are satisfied; reversed the lower court decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal habeas relief lies for state-law parole-review errors | Cooke/Clay: state-law 'some evidence' rule unjustified federally | California: federal review limited to due process procedures | No federal habeas relief for state-law error |
| Whether California’s 'some evidence' standard is a federal due process requirement | Ninth Circuit: some evidence is required as part of due process | Greenholtz framework suffices; no federal merit review of state standard | Not a federal requirement; due process satisfied by minimal procedures |
| Whether the Governor’s denial in Clay case violated due process | Governor’s focus on past offense violated due process | Due process satisfied by minimal procedures; reliance on state standards permissible | No due process violation; proper minimal procedures applied |
| Role of state-law determinations vs. federal review | Narrow review only for constitutional defects | State court findings unreviewable as misapplication of state law | Federal review limited to constitutional questions; state-law merits not reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (some evidence standard governs parole suitability determination (state law context))
- In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal. 2008) (parole suitability and some evidence review in California)
- In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002) (parole decision review; federal vs. state-law questions discussed)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979) (due process minimal requirements for parole hearings)
- Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc; discusses minimal due process standards in California parole)
- Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1987) (due process protections when liberty interests are created)
- Greenholtz v. Nebraska, 442 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979) (establishes minimal due process for parole decisions)
- Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1989) (two-step inquiry for due process in liberty interests)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (federal habeas relief not available for mere state-law errors)
- Wilson v. Corcoran, — (—) (federal habeas review limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a))