Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
State V. Boston, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 98 (Dec. 31, 2015), Nancy Snow
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
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.
Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz
Martin A. Schwartz
No abstract provided.
Pinholster's Hostility To Victims Of Ineffective State Habeas Counsel, Jennifer Utrecht
Pinholster's Hostility To Victims Of Ineffective State Habeas Counsel, Jennifer Utrecht
Michigan Law Review
Cullen v. Pinholster foreclosed federal courts from considering new evidence when reviewing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) petitions for claims previously adjudicated on the merits in state court. This decision has a particularly adverse effect on petitioners whose state habeas counsel left an incomplete or undeveloped record. This Note discusses strategies for victims of ineffective state habeas counsel to avoid the hostile mandate of Pinholster. It argues that, in light of Martinez v. Ryan’s recognition of the importance of counsel in initialreview collateral proceedings, courts should be wary of dismissing claims left un- or underdeveloped by ineffective state habeas counsel. It …
Federalism, Federal Courts, And Victims' Rights, Michael E. Solimine, Kathryn Elvey
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 …
Collateral Damage: A Guide To Criminal Appellate, Postconviction, And Habeas Corpus Litigation In Wisconsin, Matthew M. Fernholz
Collateral Damage: A Guide To Criminal Appellate, Postconviction, And Habeas Corpus Litigation In Wisconsin, Matthew M. Fernholz
Marquette Law Review
none
Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton
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 …