Cite as: 515 U. S. 951 (1995)
Stevens, J., dissenting
that relief. It is disrespectful to the Court of Appeals to assume that its grant of that motion did not implicitly endorse the reasoning in respondent's moving papers.
The stay of execution would merely have given respondent the opportunity to seek the review in this Court that has been authorized by Congress and our Rules. In my opinion it is both unwise and unfair to require a death row inmate who has acted diligently at all stages of his litigation to prepare and file a petition raising substantial claims more promptly than other litigants. I would deny the warden's application.
Justice Souter would deny the application to vacate stay of execution.
Justice Breyer, for reasons stated in the first paragraph of Justice Stevens' dissent, votes to deny the application.
953
Last modified: October 4, 2007