Law Commons^™

Objectivity And Habeas Corpus: Should Federal District Court Judges Be Permitted To Rule Upon The Validity Of Their Own Criminal Trial Conduct?, Marilyn L. Kelley

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

It has already been suggested that one of the main purposes of section 2255 was to provide a convenient forum in which the trial judge might testify, if necessary. That purpose is, obviously, contrary to the interpretation rendered in Carvell.

Beyond this inconsistency, Carvell suggests two significant issues: first, that it is highly desirable that the motions be passed upon by the judge who is familiar with the facts; and second, that the criminal trial judge is not likely to be misled by allegations in the 2255 petition as to what had occurred. The first issue raises the question …

Admiralty Procedure And Jurisdiction After The 1966 Unification, David W. Robertson

Michigan Law Review

From the nation's beginning, the federal district courts have been vested with jurisdiction in cases "of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." Like its predecessor statute, section 1333 of the present Judicial Code asserts that the jurisdiction is "exclusive of the courts of the states," but the infamous "saving clause" goes on to negate that exclusivity in the bulk of maritime cases by giving the plaintiff the option of maintaining his action in any other court having jurisdiction over it. In "saving clause" cases--that is, cases that could have been brought in federal court under the admiralty jurisdiction, but which were maintained, …