CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Schriro v. Landrigan

2007 United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 27, 2026
Entity authorityQ126284815 ↗
Source-derived summary

Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on May 14, 2007. In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the District Court had not abused its discretion when it refused to grant an evidentiary hearing to convicted murderer Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan who had instructed his defense counsel not to put on any mitigation case during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial. In doing so, the Supreme Court also reversed the prior ruling to the contrary by the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had held that Landrigan was entitled to habeas relief on the grounds that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The latter court had also held that the District Court's denial of such a hearing to Landrigan amounted to an "unreasonable determination of the facts", which is one of the two circumstances under which the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 permits the granting of federal habeas relief to state prisoners.

Background

Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan was convicted of second-degree murder in Oklahoma in 1982. In 1986, while in prison for that murder, Landrigan repeatedly stabbed another inmate, for which he was convicted of assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In 1989, he escaped from prison and murdered Chester Dean Dyer during a burglary. For this crime, Landrigan was convicted of theft, second-degree burglary, and felony murder. At his sentencing hearing for this conviction, Landrigan's lawyer attempted to present mitigating evidence, but Landrigan repeatedly interrupted him, and at Landrigan's request, multiple witnesses who had intended to testify on his behalf did not do so.

Editorial summary

“Schriro v. Landrigan” enters the record as 2007 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Schriro, Landrigan and United can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA dependable orientation record for establishing vocabulary, names and a first evidence trail. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2007, 1996, 1982, 1986—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Schriro, Landrigan and United.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Schriro v. Landrigan” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Schriro, Landrigan and United provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q126284815. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2007, 1996, 1982 and 1986.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Schriro v. Landrigan”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Schriro v. Landrigan primary sources, Schriro v. Landrigan archive and Schriro research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Schriro v. Landrigan”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Schriro v. Landrigan” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.