Law Commons^™

Guantánamo, Habeas Corpus, And Standards Of Proof: Viewing The Law Through Multiple Lenses, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court held in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus review of their detention, but it left to district courts in the first instance responsibility for working through the appropriate standard of proof and related evidentiary principles imposed on the government to justify continued detention. This article argues that embedded in seemingly straightforward judicial standard-setting with respect to proof and evidence are significant policy questions about competing risks and their distribution. How one approaches these questions depends on the lens through which one views the problem: through that of a courtroom concerned …

The Future Of American Sentencing: A National Roundtable On Blakely, Ronald J. Allen, Albert Alschuler, Douglas A. Berman, Stephanos Bibas, Frank O. Bowman Iii, Daniel P. Blank, Charles R. Breyer, Steven Chanenson, Michael R. Dreeben, Margareth Etienne, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Patrick Keenan, Joseph E. Kennedy, Nancy J. King, Susan J. Klein, Rory K. Little, Marc L. Miller, J. Bradley O'Connell, David Porter, Kevin R. Reitz, Daniel C. Richman, Kate Stith, Barbara Tombs, Richard B. Walker, Robert Weisberg, Robert F. Wright Jr., Jonathan Wroblewski, David N. Yellen

Faculty Scholarship

In the wake of the dramatic Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, Stanford Law School convened an assembly of the most eminent academic and professional sentencing experts in the country to jointly assess the meaning of the decision and its implications for federal and state sentencing reform. The event took place on October 8 and 9, just a few months after Blakely came down and the very week that the Supreme Court heard the arguments in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, the cases that will test Blakely's application to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Thus the …

Brecht V. Abrahamson: Harmful Error In Habeas Corpus Law, James S. Liebman, Randy Hertz

Faculty Scholarship

For the past two and one-half decades, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have applied the same rule for assessing the harmlessness of constitutional error in habeas corpus proceedings as they have applied on direct appeal of both state and federal convictions. Under that rule, which applied to all constitutional errors except those deemed per se prejudicial or per se reversible, the state could avoid reversal upon a finding of error only by proving that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court adopted this stringent standard in Chapman v. California to fulfill the federal …

Apocalypse Next Time?: The Anachronistic Attack On Habeas Corpus/Direct Review Parity, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Today, a district court's habeas corpus review of the constitutionality of a state criminal conviction and the Supreme Court's direct review of the same question are nearly identical. Last Term, in Wright v. West, an otherwise mundane criminal procedure case, the Supreme Court rewrote the question presented to ask whether the parity between federal habeas corpus and direct appellate review should be destroyed. The Court proposed abandoning in habeas corpus an important trait shared by the two modes of review – de novo consideration of legal and mixed legal-factual questions.

To those who value meaningful habeas corpus review, the …

More Than "Slightly Retro:" The Rehnquist Court's Rout Of Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction In Teague V. Lane, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Someone I know, more a student of contemporary fashion than I, sometimes describes people dressed in uniformly dark clothing as "slightly retro." I am not sure of the allusion, but what I can discern leads me to think that the Supreme Court's nonretroactivity decisions beginning with Teague v. Lane are – puns aside – more than just "slightly retro."

The Court's innovation may be stated as follows: For 160 years, Congress empowered federal judges to order state officials to release or retry individuals held in custody in violation of federal law as those federal judges, and not the state officials, …