Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

In Defense Of Noncapital Habeas: A Response To Hoffmann And King, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Keir M. Weyble Mar 2011

In Defense Of Noncapital Habeas: A Response To Hoffmann And King, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Keir M. Weyble

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

For decades, federal habeas corpus review of state court judgments has generated wide-ranging, sometimes heated, debate among judges, policymakers, and scholars. In their 2009 Essay, Rethinking the Federal Role in State Criminal Justice, Professors Joseph L. Hoffmann and Nancy J. King added their voices to the exchange, contending that federal habeas corpus review of noncapital state court convictions and sentences should, with narrow exceptions, be abolished. They contend that the expenditure of money, time, and effort necessary to provide review in such cases is no longer justifiable and that those resources should be redirected to creating a federal initiative for …


Suspension And The Extrajudicial Constitution, Trevor W. Morrison Nov 2007

Suspension And The Extrajudicial Constitution, Trevor W. Morrison

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

What happens when Congress suspends the writ of habeas corpus? Everyone agrees that suspending habeas makes that particular - and particularly important - judicial remedy unavailable for those detained by the government. But does suspension also affect the underlying legality of the detention? That is, in addition to making the habeas remedy unavailable, does suspension convert an otherwise unlawful detention into a lawful one? Some, including Justice Scalia in the 2004 case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Professor David Shapiro in an important recent article, answer yes.

This Article answers no. I previously offered that same answer in a symposium essay; …


Aedpa: The "Hype" And The "Bite", John H. Blume Jan 2006

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 …


The Supreme Court, Guantanamo Bay And Justice Fix-It, Ronald W. Meister Oct 2004

The Supreme Court, Guantanamo Bay And Justice Fix-It, Ronald W. Meister

Cornell Law School Berger International Speaker Papers

In the summer of 2004, the United States Supreme Court ruled on three cases involving individuals detained as "enemy combatants." Given the issues of Presidential power, habeas corpus and individual rights involved, there was a lot of speculation about the historical importance of the decisions. This presentation examines these three decisions and what they teach us about the Supreme Court and government in the 21st century.


The Color Of Truth: Race And The Assessment Of Credibility, Sheri Lynn Johnson Jul 1996

The Color Of Truth: Race And The Assessment Of Credibility, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Death-Innocence And The Law Of Habeas Corpus, Stephen P. Garvey Jan 1992

Death-Innocence And The Law Of Habeas Corpus, Stephen P. Garvey

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The legal space between a sentence of death and the execution chamber is occupied by an intricate network of procedural rules. On average, it currently takes between six and seven years to traverse this space, but this interval is expected to shrink. Federal habeas corpus, an important part of this space, is studded more and more with procedural obstacles that bar the federal courts from entertaining the merits of a defendant's claims. By design, these barriers foreclose federal review in order to protect the state's interests in the finality of its criminal convictions, as well as to display healthy respect …


Federal Habeas Corpus, Kevin M. Clermont Mar 1970

Federal Habeas Corpus, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.