Friday, June 24, 2011

No stay of injunction for Bridgeport Fittings; CAFC cites criminal case

In denying a stay of a permanent injunction, the CAFC cited Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 US 770 (1987).

If you don't remember that one, this was a CRIMINAL case out of New Jersey: In January 1981, respondent Dana Braunskill was convicted in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, of sexual assault and unlawful possession of a weapon, in violation of N. J. Stat. Ann. 2C:14-2, 2C:39-5(d) (West 1982 and Supp. 1986-1987), and was sentenced to eight years' [481 U.S. 770, 773] imprisonment. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court affirmed the convictions, and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied review.

Of the result:

In deciding under Rules 23(c) and (d) whether to stay pending appeal a district court order granting relief to a habeas petitioner, federal courts are not restricted to considering only the petitioner's risk of flight. The history of federal habeas corpus practice indicates that a court has broad discretion in conditioning a judgment granting habeas relief, and a court's denial of enlargement to a successful habeas petitioner pending review of the habeas order has the same effect as a stay of that order. Since habeas corpus proceedings are civil in nature, federal courts, in deciding under the Rule whether to release a successful habeas petitioner pending the State's appeal, should beguided by the traditional standards governing stays of civil judgments -- whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits.




Post a Comment

<< Home