## Facts

- Eugene Woodard, an Ohio death row inmate, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
- After an execution date was set, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority initiated the state clemency process.
- The Authority informed Woodard he could participate in a voluntary interview with Authority members and that a clemency hearing would occur about one week later.
- Woodard filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging (1) Ohio’s clemency procedures violated Fourteenth Amendment due process and (2) the voluntary interview violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because it required choosing between silence and meaningful clemency participation.
- The district court entered judgment on the pleadings for the State.
- The Sixth Circuit agreed clemency itself created no protected liberty interest, but held minimal due process applied and found the interview procedure raised an unconstitutional-conditions concern under the Fifth Amendment.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause imposes procedural constraints on Ohio’s clemency process for a death-sentenced inmate.
2. Whether offering a voluntary clemency interview without immunity (and without counsel) violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit.
- On due process, a majority concluded Ohio’s procedures did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment; clemency remains committed to executive discretion, subject at most to minimal procedural limits.
- On self-incrimination, the Court held the voluntary interview did not violate the Fifth Amendment because participation and any statements were not compelled.

## Legal Principles

- The existence of a clemency system does not itself create a substantive liberty interest in clemency protected by due process.
- Even absent a substantive entitlement to clemency, clemency procedures are not wholly exempt from due process; the controlling view allows only minimal constraints, barring procedures that are entirely arbitrary and requiring at least notice and a meaningful chance to present a request for mercy.
- The Fifth Amendment prohibits compelled self-incrimination, not every difficult strategic choice.
- A voluntary clemency interview, even without immunity and even if refusal may have adverse practical consequences for clemency, does not amount to compulsion when the inmate remains free to decline the interview or to refuse to answer particular questions.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Ohio’s clemency process, as applied, satisfied any minimal due process requirements and that offering a voluntary clemency interview without immunity did not compel self-incrimination, reaffirming that clemency is primarily an executive function with only limited constitutional constraints.


Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)