Jurisprudence Commons^™

It’S All Your Fault!: Examining The Defendant’S Use Of Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel As A Means Of Getting A “Second Bite At The Apple.”, Prentice L. White

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The United States Constitution provides individuals convicted of a crime with “a second bite at the apple.” The Sixth Amendment provides an avenue to appeal one’s conviction based on the claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” What were the Framers’ true intentions in using the phrase “effective assistance of counsel”? How does the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 affect habeas corpus appeals? This article answers these questions through the eyes of Thomas—a fictional character who is appealing his murder conviction.

This article first looks at the history surrounding effective assistance of counsel and discusses the difficulties …

Challenging Unjust Convictions Under Section 1983, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Analysis Of Death Penalty Decisions From The October 2006 Supreme Court Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure Decisions From The October 2006 Term, Susan N. Herman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

New Paths For The Court: Protections Afforded Juveniles Under Miranda; Effective Assistance Of Counsel; And Habeas Corpus Decisions Of The Supreme Court’S 2010/2011 Term, Richard Klein

Richard Daniel Klein

No abstract provided.

New Paths For The Court: Protections Afforded Juveniles Under Miranda; Effective Assistance Of Counsel; And Habeas Corpus Decisions Of The Supreme Court’S 2010/2011 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aedpa Mea Culpa, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, the author contends that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 [AEDPA] has frustrated both the enforcement of federal rights and legitimate state interests. He lays most of the blame on the Supreme Court's methodology for construing AEDPA's provisions. The Court insists that poorly conceived and drafted provisions must be taken literally, whatever the consequences, and that every provision must be read to change habeas corpus law in some way. This approach has produced unfair, wasteful, and even bizarre results that might have been avoided if the Court had assessed AEDPA more realistically.

Justice Stevens And The Obligations Of Judgment, David Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

How to sum up a corpus of opinions that spans dozens of legal fields and four decades on the bench? How to make the most sense of a jurisprudence that has always been resistant to classification, by a jurist widely believed to have "no discernible judicial philosophy"? These questions have stirred Justice Stevens' former clerks in recent months. Since his retirement, many of us have been trying to capture in some meaningful if partial way what we found vital and praiseworthy in his approach to the law. There may be something paradoxical about the attempt to encapsulate in a formula …

Aedpa, Saucier, And The Stronger Case For Rights-First Constitutional Adjudication, Stephen I. Vladeck

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

As part of a symposium on new affirmative visions of the judicial role, this essay takes on the Supreme Court's increasing unwillingness to resolve constitutional questions in post-conviction habeas cases under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), as seen in decisions such as Wright v. Van Patten, 128 S. Ct. 743 (2008). In most cases in which AEDPA applies, a petitioner is only eligible for relief if a state court's constitutional error was unreasonable based on prior Supreme Court decisions (and not dicta). As a result, the Court has repeatedly concluded that a state court did …

Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should Aedpa's Standard Of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This Article aims to expand the debate over the proper standard of review that applies in state prisoner habeas corpus actions in federal court. To date, this debate has centered on whether federal habeas courts should defer to the state court's resolution of federal legal questions, or whether federal habeas courts should assess and apply federal law de novo. However, in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), the Supreme Court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes a deferential standard of review that precludes a federal habeas court from granting relief based simply on its …

A Tortured Construction: The Illegal Immigration Reform And Immigrant Responsibility Act's Express Bar Denying Criminal Aliens Withholding Of Deportation Defies The Principles Of International Law Comment., Bobbie Marie Guerra

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States has never fully complied with international agreements concerning refugee’s rights to not be returned to a country where he or she faces certain threats of torture. This lack of compliance by the United States is exacerbated by two conflicting interests: the growing insistence on keeping aliens outside the nation’s borders and protecting international refugees who endure gross violations of their human rights. The recent amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provide a contemporary example of the volatility and inconsistency of the United States’ immigration policy. In April 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death …

Distinguishing Fong Yue Ting: Why The Inclusion Of Perjury As An Aggravated Felony Subjecting Legal Aliens To Deportation Under The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Violates The Eighth Amendment Comment., Gregory L. Ryan

St. Mary's Law Journal

Responding to the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City, Congress spent several months researching and discussing the best ways to strengthen the United States’ ability to deter and punish terrorism. In 1996, Congress sent a bill to the President designed to make the country safer, and President Clinton signed the bill into law: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA mandates a foreign national convicted of perjury be deported. Tucked away in the middle of the AEDPA, strict sanctions are imposed on noncitizens who commit perjury or subordination of perjury. In an attempt to strengthen the …