In the case of Ohio Adult Parole Authority, et al. v. Eugene Woodard (1997), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a death row inmate does not have a constitutional right to counsel or access to discovery in clemency proceedings. The court held that these procedures are an act of mercy and grace by the executive branch, rather than part of the adversarial judicial process where such rights typically apply. Therefore, they do not fall under due process protections as outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision was based on Woodard's claim that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was denied legal representation during his clemency hearing before execution.

In the dissenting opinion for Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, Justice Stevens argued that death row inmates should have a constitutional right to counsel during clemency proceedings. He contended that the majority's decision failed to recognize the importance of these proceedings as a safeguard against wrongful execution and an essential part of our system of checks and balances on state power. Furthermore, he disagreed with their assertion that clemency is purely discretionary and therefore not subject to due process requirements, arguing instead that it has evolved into a more formalized procedure in which legal representation can play a crucial role. Finally, he expressed concern about potential abuses if states are allowed unlimited discretion in this area without any oversight or accountability.