United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.
The Court ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
504 U.S. 36 · No. 90-1972 · 1991 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided May 4, 1992 · argued Jan 22, 1992
Criminal procedure · Subconstitutional fair procedure: presentation, admissibility, or sufficiency of evidence
Majority opinion: Antonin Scalia
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed and remanded. United States won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. The opinion was written by Justice Scalia, and the dissent by Justice Stevens.
The question addressed by the court was whether a district court may properly dismiss an indictment when the prosecutor withheld "substantial exculpatory evidence" that could lead the grand jury to reject the indictment but does not necessarily rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct, which would require the dismissal of an indictment. The significance of the ruling lies not only in its definition of the duty of the prosecutor in regard to presenting exculpatory evidence before the grand jury but also in its definition of the grand jury's accusatory role.
The ruling protects prosecutors who withhold "substantial exculpatory evidence" to obtain an indictment, as the role of the grand jury is not to determine guilt but to decide whether there is enough evidence of a crime; exculpatory evidence can be presented at trial. Justice Stevens's dissent focused on the argument that a prosecutor's failure to present substantially-exculpatory evidence is a form of prosecutorial misconduct, but that nevertheless, the prosecutor need not "ferret out and present all evidence that could be used at trial to create a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt."
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1991 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Antonin ScaliaWrote the majority opinion
David SouterJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
John StevensWrote a dissent
Harry BlackmunJoined a dissent
Sandra O'ConnorJoined a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- United StatesUnited States
- Respondent
- John H. Williams, Jr.Person accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Decided by
- Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 4, 1992DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. United States won.
- Jan 22, 1992ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
17 other argued cases since 1946 on subconstitutional fair procedure: presentation, admissibility, or sufficiency of evidence, newest first.
- Musacchio v. United States577 U.S. 237Jan 25, 2016 · 577 U.S. 237Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Johnnie Corley v. United States556 U.S. 303Apr 6, 2009 · 556 U.S. 303Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Moises Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon548 U.S. 331Jun 28, 2006 · 548 U.S. 331Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Johnny Lynn Old Chief v. United States519 U.S. 172Jan 14, 1997 · 519 U.S. 172Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- United States v. Anthony Salerno, et al.505 U.S. 317Jun 19, 1992 · 505 U.S. 317Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- Carchman, Mercer County Prosecutor v. Nash473 U.S. 716Jul 2, 1985 · 473 U.S. 716Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Cuyler, Correctional Superintendent, et al. v. Adams449 U.S. 433Jan 21, 1981 · 449 U.S. 433Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Rogers v. United States422 U.S. 35Jun 17, 1975 · 422 U.S. 35Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Haines v. Kerner et al.404 U.S. 519Jan 13, 1972 · 404 U.S. 519Criminal procedure7–0Unanimous band
- Bushnell v. Ellis, Corrections Director366 U.S. 418May 22, 1961 · 366 U.S. 418Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- Stirone v. United States361 U.S. 212Jan 11, 1960 · 361 U.S. 212Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Shotwell Manufacturing Co. et al.355 U.S. 233Dec 16, 1957 · 355 U.S. 233Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy et al. v. Murff, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service355 U.S. 169Dec 9, 1957 · 355 U.S. 169Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Opper v. United States348 U.S. 84Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 84Criminal procedure7–18–1 band
- North v. Florida346 U.S. 932Jan 18, 1954 · 346 U.S. 932Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Blau v. United States340 U.S. 332Jan 15, 1951 · 340 U.S. 332Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
- Michelson v. United States335 U.S. 469Dec 20, 1948 · 335 U.S. 469Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.