Law Commons^™

State V. Boston, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 31, 2015), Nancy Snow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considers an appeal from a district court order granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the Court considered whether the holding in Graham applies when an aggregate sentence imposed against a juvenile defender convicted of more than one nonhomicide offense is the equivalent of a life-without-parole sentence. The Court held that it does.

Berry V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 96 (Dec. 24, 2015), Brittany L. Shipp

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The issue before the Court was an appeal from a district court order dismissing a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court reversed and remanded holding that the district court improperly discounted the declarations in support of the appellant’s petition, which included a confession of another suspect, whom the petitioner implicated as the real perpetrator at trial. The Court held that these declarations were sufficient to merit discovery, and an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Berry’s gateway actual innocence claim.

Federalism, Federal Courts, And Victims' Rights, Michael E. Solimine, Kathryn Elvey

Catholic University Law Review

One of the most striking developments in American criminal law and procedure in the past four decades has been the widespread establishment of victims’ rights at both the federal and state levels. A conspicuous exception to the success of the victims’ rights movement has been the failure of Congress to pass a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would uniformly establish such rights in all federal and state courts. Advanced by both private organizations and state officials, and with bipartisan support in Congress, bills establishing a Victims’ Rights Amendment (VRA) have been introduced several times in the past three …

The Effect Of Jackson V. Virginia On Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Convictions, David R. Parker

Akron Law Review

This comment will attempt to demonstrate that the faults complained of by the dissent are not substantial. On the contrary, the decision gives much-needed interpretation to an important aspect of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. However, the practical consequences of the employment of the Jackson standard are problematic.

Finding Time For Federal Habeas Corpus: Carey V. Saffold, Karen M. Marshall

Akron Law Review

This Note begins by looking at the history of the writ of habeas corpus in the United States. There is a brief overview of the background and history of the AEDPA, specifically targeting the changes the AEDPA made to the law of federal habeas corpus. Next, the habeas corpus procedure in California is reviewed. Finally, this Note explains the Supreme Court’s decision in Carey v. Saffold, focusing on the Court’s policy rationale and what the lack of support for habeas corpus means for the future of the writ.

People V. Cole: Is The Incarceration Of An "Actually Innocent" Person Constitutional?, Aileen R. Kavanagh

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Collateral Damage: A Guide To Criminal Appellate, Postconviction, And Habeas Corpus Litigation In Wisconsin, Matthew M. Fernholz

Marquette Law Review

none

Suffocated Habeas Corpus And Merciless Clemency In The Execution Of Warren Hill, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Popular Media

On Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2015, the state of Georgia executed Warren Lee Hill, Jr. by lethal injection at the state prison in Jackson. This state unconstitutionally wielded its most dangerous and irreversible power, the power to kill. A prisoner with significantly sub-average intellectual functioning, a 54-year old man with the mind of a boy, was strapped down and killed in flagrant violation of a provision of the Bill of Rights intended to maintain human dignity.

This article discusses capital punishment against intellectually disabled individuals and how the erosion of habeas corpus at the Federal and state level and the abandonment …

Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton

Richard Broughton

In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …

Preventing Manifest Injustice In Florida, Angela R. Passaro

Angela R Passaro

No abstract provided.