## Facts

- William Bracy was convicted of an execution-style triple murder in Illinois state court and sentenced to death.
- The trial judge, Thomas J. Maloney, was later federally convicted of corruption offenses for taking bribes and fixing criminal cases.
- Bracy alleged no bribe was paid in his case, but claimed Maloney had an incentive to be harsh toward non-bribing defendants to mask corruption elsewhere.
- Bracy asserted Maloney appointed a former law associate as defense counsel, and that counsel proceeded unusually quickly and did not seek additional time for the penalty phase.
- A government proffer from Maloney’s criminal case indicated Bracy’s trial occurred between other murder trials Maloney allegedly fixed, supporting Bracy’s theory that his case served as “cover.”

## Issues

1. Whether Bracy established “good cause” under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases to obtain discovery to develop his due process claim of actual judicial bias.
2. Whether Maloney’s proven corruption, combined with case-specific allegations, provided reason to believe Bracy could prove an unconstitutional lack of an impartial tribunal if facts were developed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Seventh Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held Bracy made a sufficient factual showing to establish “good cause” for discovery under Habeas Rule 6(a).
- The Court did not decide whether Bracy’s trial was actually biased; it held only that limited discovery was warranted to attempt to prove the claim.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires a fair trial before a judge with no actual bias against the defendant and no interest in the outcome of the particular case.
- Under Habeas Rule 6(a), discovery may be authorized for “good cause” when specific allegations give reason to believe that, if facts are fully developed, the petitioner may be entitled to relief.
- Courts assess discovery requests by identifying the essential elements of the underlying constitutional claim and determining whether the petitioner has offered more than speculation.
- Although courts generally presume public officials properly discharge their duties, that presumption can be rebutted by evidence such as a judge’s proven corruption.
- A theory of “compensatory” or “camouflaging” bias—harsh treatment of non-bribing defendants to offset or conceal favoritism in bribed cases—would violate due process if proved, and may justify targeted discovery when supported by case-specific indications.

## Conclusion

Bracy was entitled to conduct limited habeas discovery because his judge’s demonstrated corruption, coupled with particular allegations about counsel appointment and trial circumstances, created good cause to investigate whether actual judicial bias tainted his conviction and death sentence.


Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997)