Law Commons^™

Habeas Corpus Law In The Ninth Circuit After Mendoza V. Carey: A New Era?, Jay W. Spencer

Seattle University Law Review

After a brief review in Part II of the current habeas corpus appeals practice following the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA),9 Part III of this Note will examine the factual and procedural history of Mendoza. Next, Part IV will analyze the case's majority and dissenting opinions. Finally, Part V contrasts Mendoza with factually similar cases in other jurisdictions and demonstrates that, even though the Ninth Circuit stands alone, its ruling strikes a proper balance between limiting abuse of the writ and ensuring that it remains available to all inmates who diligently pursue …

Mostly Harmless: An Analysis Of Post-Aedpa Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Harmless Error Determinations, Jeffrey S. Jacobi

Michigan Law Review

Sixty years ago, in Kotteakos v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a small class of so-called harmless errors committed by courts did not require correction. The Court acknowledged that some judicial errors, though recognizable as errors, did not threaten the validity of criminal convictions and therefore did not quite require reversal. Specifically, the Court held that errors that violated federal statutes should be deemed harmless unless they had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." While Kotteakos represented the Supreme Court's first treatment of the concept of harmlessness, other courts had a …

Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Catalyzing More Adequate Federal Habeas Review Of Summation Misconduct: Persuasion Theory And The Sixth Amendment Right To An Unbiased Jury, Ryan P. Alford

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Habeas Corpus: Expired Conviction, Expired Relief: Can The Writ Of Habeas Corpus Be Used To Test The Constitutionality Of A Deportation Based On An Expired Conviction?, Joshua D. Smith

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Time Out Of Mind: Our Collective Amnesia About The History Of The Privileges Or Immunities Clause, Michael P. O'Connor

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Stacking The Deck Against Suspected Terrorists: The Dwindling Procedural Limits On The Government's Power To Indefinitely Detain United States Citizens As Enemy Combatants, Nickolas A. Kacprowski

Seattle University Law Review

This Note examines Padilla v. Bush as an example of the contemporary application of enemy combatant law. This Note argues that in present and future applications of enemy combatant law, courts should treat Padilla as the preferred model of application because Padilla preserves more Constitutional protections, specifically the right to counsel in bringing a habeas petition, than do Hamdi or Quirin. The Padilla decision is preferable to Hamdi because Padilla restricts the movement of enemy combatant law away from the ex- press criminal protections of the Constitution. In contrast, Hamdi greatly accelerates such movement.

When Constitutional Worlds Colide: Resurrecting The Framers' Bill Of Rights And Criminal Procedure, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

For two hundred years, the Supreme Court has been interpreting the Bill of Rights. Imagine Chief Justice John Marshall sitting in the dim, narrow Supreme Court chambers, pondering the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in United States v. Burr. Aaron Burr was charged with treason for planning to invade the Louisiana Territory and create a separate government there. To help prepare his defense, Burr wanted to see a letter written by General James Wilkinson to President Jefferson. In ruling on Burr's motion to compel disclosure, Marshall departed from the literal language of the Sixth Amendment - …

Too Late For The Truth? Retroactivity And Application Of The Statute Of Limitations For Filing 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petitions, Brian E. Moore

Campbell Law Review

This comment addresses the issue of whether the one-year statute of limitations should control a petition filed after the effective date of the AEDPA but based on a conviction which became final more that one year prior to the effective date of the act. By analyzing both the minority and majority approaches, this comment demonstrates that the minority has misapplied the recent Supreme Court opinion in Landgraf v. USI Film Products. Furthermore, the purpose of this comment is to suggest the correct framework for determining the proper temporal reach of this statute.

It Was A Very Good Year - For The Government: The Supreme Court's Major Criminal Rulings Of The 1995-1996 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Fairness Irrelevant?: The Evisceration Of Federal Habeas Corpus Review And Limits On The Ability Of State Courts To Protect Fundamental Rights, Stephen B. Bright

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tiptoeing Through The Tulips: The Supreme Court's Major, But Modest By Comparison, Criminal Law Rulings During The 1994-95 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Reform Of Habeas Corpus: The Advocates' Lament, Christopher E. Smith

Cleveland State Law Review

The U. S. Supreme Court has engineered significant changes in habeas corpus procedures. Any change in law or public policy has consequences for the human beings whose lives come into contact with the changed law or policy. Critics have accused the Rehnquist Court of "dismantling access to federal habeas corpus review guaranteed by statute since 1867." As a result, concerns have emerged regarding the consequences for potential petitioners whose claims can no longer be reviewed by federal judges. While the fate of death row inmates is the most important consequence of habeas corpus reform, anecdotal reports on these controversial cases …

Incorporating The Suspension Clause: Is There A Constitutional Right To Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners?, Jordan Steiker

Michigan Law Review

In the early 1960s, the Supreme Court adopted generous standards governing federal habeas petitions by state prisoners. At that time, the Court suggested, rather surprisingly, that its solicitude toward such petitions might be constitutionally mandated by the Suspension Clause, the only provision in the Constitution that explicitly refers to the "Writ of Habeas Corpus." Now, thirty years later, the Court has essentially overruled those expansive rulings, and Congress has considered, though not yet enacted, further limitations on the availability of the writ. Despite these significant assaults on the habeas forum, the constitutional argument appears to have been entirely abandoned. The …

Sotto Voce: The Supreme Court's Low Key But Not Insignificant Criminal Law Rulings During The 1992 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Guilt: Henry Friendly Meets The Maharal Of Prague, Irene Merker Rosenberg, Yale L. Rosenberg

Michigan Law Review

So while the overnight deliberation rule is at least partially bound up with the question of reliability and relates to the judicial process itself, the broader and more fundamental issue raised by this law is whether we should free the guilty to preserve a value that we deem necessary to proper working of the criminal justice process, regardless of the culpability of individual defendants. To this Judge Friendly's answer is generally no, 113 and the MaHaRaL's is yes.

Resolving Retroactivity After: Teague V. Lane, Ellen E. Boshkoff

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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.

Habeas Corpus: Its History And Its Future, Charles Alan Wright

Michigan Law Review

A Review of A Constitutional History of Habeas Corpus by William F. Duker

Stone V. Powell And The Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Part I briefly identifies the considerations underlying the Stone Court's decision to limit habeas corpus review of fourth amendment claims. Part II then argues against applying Stone to the sixth amendment claim. After establishing the analytic difference between the two constitutional claims and examining Stone's "opportunity for full and fair litigation" standard, it concludes that Stone is fully consistent with free review of habeas corpus petitions alleging incompetent handling of fourth amendment questions. Finally, responding to a popular interpretation of Stone, Part II demonstrates that the possibility that ineffectiveness claims may not further the determination of a defendant's …

Beyond Custody: Expanding Collateral Review Of State Convictions, Timothy C. Hester

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article advocates extension of collateral review to embrace all parties alleging deprivation of federally guaranteed rights in the state criminal process, regardless of whether the party fulfills the habeas corpus custody requirement. Part I assesses the sufficiency of Supreme Court certiorari jurisdiction to monitor adequately state adjudications of federal constitutional rights, coupled with an evaluation of the technical competency and institutional posture of state courts. Part II examines the significance of the custody limitation on collateral review, both as a substantive element of habeas corpus relief and as a mechanism for funnelling limited judicial resources. Part III presents two …

Constitutional Law - Mootness - Personal Stake - Class Actions, Thomas F. Smida

Duquesne Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has held that an action brought on behalf of a class may be appealed upon expiration of the named plaintiffs substantive claim even though the class certification has been denied.

United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980).

Waiver Under The West Virginia Habeas Corpus Act, Gene R. Nichol Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Applying Stone V. Powell: Full And Fair Litigation Of A Fourth Amendment Habeas Corpus Claim

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right Of Prisoner Access: Does Bounds Have Bounds?, Josephine R. Potuto

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lefkowitz V. Newsome: The Supreme Court Takes Another Look At Guilty Pleas

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Alternative Approaches To Exhaustion Of State Remedies In Federal Habeas Corpus

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Federal Habeas Corpus By State Prisoners, J. Deweese Carter

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.