| Litigants: | Withrow v. Williams |
| Arguedate: | November 3 |
| Argueyear: | 1992 |
| Decidedate: | April 21 |
| Decideyear: | 1993 |
| Fullname: | Pamela Withrow, Petitioner v. Robert Allen Williams, Jr. |
| Usvol: | 507 |
| Uspage: | 680 |
| Parallelcitations: | 113 S. Ct. 1745; 123 L. Ed. 2d 407; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 2980; 61 U.S.L.W. 4352; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2893; 93 Daily Journal DAR 4974; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 191 |
| Majority: | Souter |
| Joinmajority: | unanimous (part III); White, Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy (parts I, II, IV) |
| Concurrence/Dissent: | O'Connor |
| Joinconcurrence/Dissent: | Rehnquist |
| Concurrence/Dissent2: | Scalia |
| Joinconcurrence/Dissent2: | Thomas |
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Fifth Amendment Miranda v. Arizona arguments can be raised again in federal habeas corpus proceedings, even if a criminal defendant had a fair chance to argue those claims in state court.[1] The Court rejected the state's argument that Stone v. Powell, a case holding the opposite in the context of Fourth Amendment claims on habeas review, applied in Williams' case.[2]