Law Commons^™

Form And Function In The Administration Of Justice: The Bill Of Rights And Federal Habeas Corpus, Larry W. Yackle

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I critiques the Report's insistence that accurate fact finding exhausts, or nearly exhausts, the objectives of criminal justice, identifies the fundamental role of the Bill of Rights in the American political order, and situates federal habeas corpus within that framework. Part II traces the Report's historical review of the federal habeas jurisdiction and critiques the Report's too-convenient reliance on selected materials that, on examination, fail to undermine conventional understandings of the writ's development as a postconviction remedy. Part III responds to the Report's complaints regarding current habeas corpus practice and refutes contentions that the habeas jurisdiction overburdens federal dockets …

Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Judgments, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Report carries out a review of the historical development of the federal habeas corpus jurisdiction; examines its contemporary character and operation; and discusses relevant policy considerations. The Report concludes that federal habeas corpus as a post-conviction remedy for state prisoners should be abolished or limited as far as possible. The limited reform proposals that were passed by the Senate in 1984 and that are currently before Congress as Title II of the proposed Criminal Justice Reform Act provide the best immediate prospect for improvement.

Objectivity And Habeas Corpus: Should Federal District Court Judges Be Permitted To Rule Upon The Validity Of Their Own Criminal Trial Conduct?, Marilyn L. Kelley

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

It has already been suggested that one of the main purposes of section 2255 was to provide a convenient forum in which the trial judge might testify, if necessary. That purpose is, obviously, contrary to the interpretation rendered in Carvell.

Beyond this inconsistency, Carvell suggests two significant issues: first, that it is highly desirable that the motions be passed upon by the judge who is familiar with the facts; and second, that the criminal trial judge is not likely to be misled by allegations in the 2255 petition as to what had occurred. The first issue raises the question …