## Facts

- Williams was convicted in New York state court of first-degree murder for killing a victim during a burglary.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict and recommended life imprisonment.
- Under New York law, the jury’s recommendation was advisory and did not bind the trial judge.
- Before sentencing, the judge received a probation report and other information about Williams’s prior criminal conduct and character.
- Relying on the trial evidence plus information from the probation department and other sources, the judge imposed a death sentence.
- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Williams’s claim that due process barred reliance on information from persons he could not confront or cross-examine.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires a sentencing judge to confront the defendant with, and allow cross-examination of, out-of-court sources whose information is considered in fixing punishment after a fair trial and conviction, including where the judge imposes death contrary to a jury recommendation of life imprisonment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the death sentence.
- Due process was satisfied because Williams was convicted after a fair trial and sentenced within the range authorized by state law.
- The Constitution did not require trial-type confrontation and cross-examination procedures for information used by the judge in sentencing.
- The Court emphasized the historical practice and functional need for judges to consider broad information about a defendant’s life and conduct when selecting an appropriate sentence.

## Legal Principles

- Sentencing may rely on a wide range of information sources and types, including reports and hearsay, that would not be admissible under trial evidentiary rules.
- The Due Process Clause does not mandate confrontation and cross-examination of persons providing information about the defendant’s record and character for sentencing purposes after a fair conviction.
- A state may authorize individualized sentencing in which the judge considers presentence investigation materials and other information to choose a sentence within statutory limits, even in a capital case.

## Conclusion

Williams v. New York held that, after a fair trial and conviction, due process does not require a sentencing judge to apply trial-style confrontation and cross-examination to presentence information used to determine punishment, and it upheld a death sentence imposed on the basis of broad presentence materials authorized by state law.


Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949)