McFarland v. Scott

Background

Frank McFarland, a man sentenced to death in Texas, asked a federal court to appoint counsel and to stay his execution so lawyers could prepare a federal challenge to his conviction. Texas and the lower courts denied relief, saying no formal habeas petition had been filed and therefore the court lacked power to act. A skeletal petition was later filed and this Court agreed to decide whether a request for counsel could start the federal process.

Reasoning

The Court looked to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act’s counsel provision, 21 U.S.C. §848(q)(4)(B), which gives indigent capital defendants a right to appointed, qualified lawyers and related services in post-conviction proceedings. The Court concluded that this right includes legal help before a full, formal habeas petition is filed. It read that right together with the habeas stay statute, 28 U.S.C. §2251, and held that once a death-row prisoner properly requests counsel, a federal court may have jurisdiction to stay the execution so counsel can prepare a petition. The Court emphasized that stays are discretionary, not automatic.

Real world impact

The decision means death-sentenced people can ask federal courts for appointed counsel and potentially a stay without first filing a complete habeas petition. Federal judges still decide whether a stay is needed; they may refuse a stay if a defendant has unreasonably delayed or abused procedures. The ruling aims to prevent summary dismissal of pro se filings that would block effective counsel from presenting claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor agreed counsel is required pre-petition but disagreed that §2251 allows stays before a petition is filed. Justice Thomas (joined by two others) would require a formal habeas application before appointing counsel or staying execution.