Law Commons^™

Turning A Blind Eye To Misleading Scientific Testimony: Failure Of Procedural Safeguards In A Capital Case, William C. Thompson

ExpressO

In September 1999, Robin Lovitt was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a pool hall manager in Arlington, Virginia. The DNA evidence that was a key part of the government’s case was presented in a misleading and unfair manner. In this case study, we first examine the way in which DNA evidence was misused. We then discuss the failure of the legal system at all levels to recognize and remedy this problem. Our goal is to explain how a system that supposedly leaves no stone unturned in capital trials managed to miss or ignore a crucial problem …

Enforcing Fourth Amendment Rights Through Federal Habeas Corpus, Steven Semeraro

ExpressO

This article reassesses the use of federal habeas corpus to enforce the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited virtually all substantive review of search-and-seizure claims in federal habeas proceedings. A wave of critical commentary followed, arguing that there was no legitimate reason to distinguish the Fourth Amendment from other constitutional rights. In recent years, however, this anomaly in habeas corpus practice has gone almost entirely unexamined despite dramatic changes in the law governing both the Fourth Amendment and habeas corpus itself.

This article does two things. First, it reviews the history …

Aedpa Statute Of Limitations: Is It Tolled When The United States Supreme Court Is Asked To Review A Judgment From A State Post-Conviction Proceeding, Diane E. Courselle

Cleveland State Law Review

This thirty-seven word provision [the tolling provision in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] has been construed by the United States Supreme Court three times since 1996, and yet several questions remain unanswered. One such unanswered question is whether tolling occurs when a petitioner files a petition for writ of certiorari to the United State Supreme Court from the state court postconviction decision. In other words, does seeking the United States Supreme Court's review from a state court's final decision on an "application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" keep the state post-conviction application "pending?" That is the …

Aedpa: The "Hype" And The "Bite", John H. Blume

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

On April 24, 1996, President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Thus, the AEDPA era began. While Clinton's presidential signing statement paid lip service to meaningful federal court review of state court convictions, AEDPA's supporters knew better. The fix was in, and happy habeas days were here again. But, as the old saying goes, "What if you gave a revolution and nobody came?" As I will argue, that is in many (but not all) respects what happened. In this Article, I have argued that AEDPA was, in many respects, more "hype" than "bite." For …