Law Commons^™

The Lasting Viability Of Rasul In The Wake Of The Detainee Treatment Act Of 2005, Joseph R. Pope

Northern Illinois University Law Review

This article examines the jurisdictional features of the newly enacted Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision as it relates to the retroactive application of the Act. In particular, the article considers the impact of the Act on the Supreme Court's earlier Rasul v. Bush decision and considers whether the statute, as interpreted by the Court in Hamdan, successfully abrogated that controversial decision or leaves certain unintended infirmities untreated. The article explores the Congressional history of the Act and explains how that history supported the Supreme Court's ultimate conclusion in Hamdan that Congress failed …

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 …

An Empirical Analysis Of Habeas Corpus: The Impact Of Teague V. Lane And The Anti-Terrorism And Death Penalty Act On Habeas Petition Success Rates And Judicial Efficiency, Joann Lee

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Opening The Flood Gates: Rasul V. Bush And The Federal Court's New World-Wide Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction, Joseph R. Pope

Northern Illinois University Law Review

This article discusses the Supreme Court's controversial Rasul v. Bush decision--a case dealing with the ability of the federal courts to entertain the habeas petitions filed by terrorist suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The article seeks to make four contributions. First, it argues that the Supreme Court has misinterpreted its own precedent in its interpretation of the territorial reach of the habeas corpus statute. Secondly, it argues that the Court misread the historical record pertaining to the territorial reach of the writ of habeas corpus--which antedated the adoption of the Constitution and was explicitly engrafted into the text of …

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 …

Brief For Petitioner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184 (U.S. Jan. 6, 2006), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

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 …

On The Adequacy Of Direct Review After The Real Id Act Of 2005, Gerald L. Neuman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

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.

A Grand Slam Of Professional Irresponsibility And Judicial Disregard, Stephen A. Saltzburg

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

Many examples of bad lawyering and indifferent judicial responses to bad lawyering concern those who seek to raise the standards of professional conduct and assure adequate legal representation for all clients. This article discusses one case (a death penalty prosecution of William Charles Payton for rape, murder and attempted murder in 1981) to illustrate just how poor the performance of lawyers can be and how largely indifferent judges often are to such performances. With the defendant's life on the line, it appears that none of the legally trained professionals at trial did what professional standards required of them. The prosecutor …

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 …