Law Commons^™

Habeas Corpus And The Penalty Of Death, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Trial And Appellate Criminal Procedure, John M. Schmolesky

Faculty Articles

Recent state and federal decisions significantly influenced Texas criminal procedure at both the trial and appellate levels. These decisions generally affected three main areas of the punishment stage of Texas criminal trials. First, they defined the scope of evidence admissible at the punishment stage. Second, they addressed procedural and substantive questions concerning the special punishment issue of use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. Third, they raised substantial questions about the constitutionality of the death penalty as applied by Texas courts.

Texas courts also faced numerous challenges in the aftermath of several important state and federal constitutional decisions. These decisions …

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

Faculty Scholarship

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 …

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, …