From
About.com . . .
To date, Stanley 'Tookie' Williams' case has received extensive legal scrutiny in both state and federal court. Since his conviction in 1981, Williams has pursued multiple appeals and habeas corpus petitions. In each and every instance, in both state and federal court, his conviction has been affirmed as appropriate and just, according to the Los Angeles District Attorney's office.
On April 18, 1980, the trial court granted Williams' motion to substitute his hand-picked attorney, Joseph Ingber, as attorney of record in place of Gerald Lenoir.
On January 21, 1981, the jury trial commenced and on March 13, 1981, the jury returned guilty verdicts of four counts of first-degree murder and two counts of robbery. The jury also found the special circumstance allegations of robbery-murder and multiple murder to be true. Lastly, the jury found true the special allegations that defendant Williams personally used a shotgun and that a principal was armed with a firearm.
On March 17, 1981, both parties having rested without presenting evidence at the penalty phase, argument was presented on behalf of the People and defendant Williams as to whether the penalty should be death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Following arguments and instructions of law by the Court on this issue, the jury, on March 18, 1981, returned a verdict of death as to each of the charged first-degree murders.
On April 15, 1981, defendant Williams' motions for a new trial and for modification of the verdict and findings imposing the death penalty were heard by the Court and denied. The trial court then sentenced Williams to death on counts 1, 2, 3 and 7.
On April 11, 1988, on automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court, in the cases of People v. Stanley Williams, Crim. No. 21977, and In re Stanley Williams, Crim. No. 23806, consolidated under Case No. S004365, and published at (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, the imposition of the death penalty was affirmed and defendant Williams' first habeas petition was denied following an evidentiary hearing.
On January 18, 1989, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams' second state habeas petition in Case No. S008526.
On that same date, January 18, 1988, defendant Williams filed his first federal habeas petition in the United States District Court in Case No. CV89-00327-SVW. The district court held that petition in abeyance while defendant Williams returned to the California Supreme Court with his unexhausted claims.
On April 11, 1994, following another evidentiary hearing, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams' third state habeas petition in Case No. S011868, published at (1994) 7 Cal.4th 572.
On June 21, 1995, the California Supreme Court denied defendant Williams' fourth state habeas petition in Case No. S039285.
On December 21, 1988, defendant Williams returned to federal court and, following an evidentiary hearing, the United States District Court denied defendant Williams' amended habeas petition in Case No. CV89-00327-SVW, and published its order at (1998) 41 F.Supp.2d 1043.
On December 17, 1999, defendant Williams' subsequent Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the judgment was denied, and the order was published at (1999) 1999 WL 1320903.
On September 10, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied defendant Williams' direct appeal and Rule 60(b) motion in Case Nos. 99-99018 and 00-99001, published at (2002) 306 F.3d 665.
On September 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals amended the opinion and denied defendant Williams' petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, published at (2004) 384 F.3d 567.
On February 2, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendant Williams' subsequent petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, published at (2005) 396 F.3d 1059.
Finally, on October 11, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied defendant Williams' petition for writ of certiorari in Case No. 04-10500.
As this historical accounting proves, Williams has benefited from a detailed and exhaustive review of all of his legal claims and each court has affirmed the guilty verdicts and affirmed the death sentence. In doing so, our courts, both state and federal, have given appropriate and serious consideration to Williams, consideration which Williams so violently denied each of his victims.