Shoop v. Twyford
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Shoop v. Twyford and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Shoop v. Twyford.
In Shoop v. Twyford, the Supreme Court addressed whether a federal court could order the transportation of a prisoner for medical testing under the All Writs Act in a habeas corpus case. The Court reversed the lower court's decision, emphasizing the need to determine the admissibility of new evidence before issuing such orders. The decision highlights the limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) on federal courts in habeas proceedings.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Shoop v. Twyford.
The Court held that a transportation order allowing a prisoner to search for new evidence is not appropriate in a habeas corpus action if the evidence is not shown to be admissible.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Shoop v. Twyford. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to Shoop v. Twyford
The case primarily deals with whether the All Writs Act can be used to order transportation for evidence gathering in a habeas case, which relates to the scope of remedies a court may order.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' a federal court's adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Shoop v. Twyford
The decision involves the court's power to review and potentially invalidate the lower court's use of the All Writs Act in the context of habeas corpus proceedings.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)This Court has held that the All Writs Act cannot be used to circumvent statutory requirements or otherwise binding procedural rules.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Shoop v. Twyford
The case touches on procedural fairness in the context of habeas corpus proceedings, specifically regarding the admissibility of new evidence.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A federal court may admit new evidence only in two limited situations: Either the claim must rely on a 'new' and 'previously unavailable' 'rule of constitutional law' made retroactively applicable by this Court, or it must rely on 'a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Shoop v. Twyford that support the summary and concepts above.
A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' a federal court's adjudication of a habeas corpus action.
The District Court and Court of Appeals in this case concluded that directing the State to transport Twyford to a medical facility would aid the adjudication of his habeas petition, but they never determined how this could aid his cause.
Twyford never explained how the results of the neurological testing could be admissible in his habeas proceedings.
