Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law
When The Conditions Are The Confinement: Eighth Amendment Habeas Claims During Covid-19, Michael L. Zuckerman
When The Conditions Are The Confinement: Eighth Amendment Habeas Claims During Covid-19, Michael L. Zuckerman
University of Cincinnati Law Review
The COVID-19 pandemic cast into harsher relief much that was already true about mass incarceration in the United States. It also cast into harsher relief much that was already true about the legal barriers confronting people seeking to make its conditions more humane. This Article offers a brief overview of the legal landscape as the COVID-19 crisis arose and then surveys eight prominent federal cases involving Eighth Amendment claims related to COVID-19 outbreaks at carceral facilities, most of which included significant litigation over whether they could secure release through habeas corpus. The Article then distills six key tensions from these …
Brief Of The National Association For Public Defense, Et Al As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Christeson V. Roper (U.S. January 30, 2017) (No. 16-7730)., Janet Moore
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
This case involves federal courts doubling down on the effective denial of counsel to a severely mentally impaired capital habeas petitioner on the eve of his execution, thereby preventing the full and fair litigation of an issue that demands this Court’s attention: the role played by a petitioner’s mental impairment in determining whether equitable tolling applies to the statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition. This Court should grant the petition to address whether the denial of adequate funding in this case constituted a constructive denial of the right to counsel required by the capital representation statute, 18 U.S.C. …
Brief Of The Roderick & Solange Macarthur Justice Center, Et Al As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Christeson V. Roper (8th Cir. August 19, 2016) (No. 16- 02730)., Janet Moore
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
This case involves a district court’s patent disregard for a deeply mentally impaired defendant’s right to meaningful representation in capital federal habeas proceedings. By funding only 6% of defense counsel’s request for necessary expert and other resources, the District Court violated the constitution, ignored federal statutory mandates, flouted the Supreme Court’s remand order, blocked counsel’s ability to satisfy professional and ethical obligations, publicly disclosed contents of previously protected information about defense strategy, and set a very dangerous precedent for our justice system.