Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus to State Prisoner Not Precluded by State Court Denial of Relief for Failure to Prosecute a Timely Appeal

1962 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 1077
Keyword(s):  
State Court ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
State Prisoner

Heeding Congress's Message: The United States Supreme Court Bars Federal Courthouse Doors to Habeas Relief Against All but Irrational State Court Decisions, and Oftentimes Doubly So

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
De Novo ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Criminal Convictions ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Federal Constitutional

Federal habeas corpus challenges to state criminal convictions grew significantly between 1948 and 1996 when traditional de novo review was coupled with an expanding list of federal constitutional protections the Supreme Court made applicable to the states. The landscape changed dramatically in 1996 when Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Old and new procedural barriers to habeas review were codified. Merits review of state court decisions became highly deferential. In a series of recent decisions discussed in this article, most notably Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011), the Court strongly expressed its frustration with the failure of lower courts to heed Congress' mandate. Federal courthouse doors are now closed to all but the rare case where there “is no possibility for fair-minded disagreement” the state court acted unreasonably (not just erroneously) in deciding the merits. Review becomes “doubly deferential” when the claim is one where deference is already owed in state court; most notably, challenges to the effectiveness of counsel and to the sufficiency of the evidence. Deference is owed even when the state court issues a summary merits decision without opinion.

Why Habeas Review of State Court Convictions Is More Important than Ever

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn Adelman ◽  
Jon Deitrich
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Court ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Political Pressure ◽  
Judicial Elections ◽  
Federal Judges

This article discusses the continued importance of rigorous habeas corpus review of state court convictions, particularly those obtained in states with an elected judiciary. Given the political pressures faced by elected judges and the tremendous amounts of money now being spent by candidates and third party groups in state judicial elections, it is highly doubtful that state courts can sufficiently protect and enforce the constitutional rights of unpopular litigants such as the criminally accused. An emerging body of research demonstrates that political pressure does indeed affect the manner in which judges rule in criminal cases. Accordingly, habeas corpus review by life-tenured federal judges should, if anything, be expanded, rather than reduced or eliminated, as some have argued.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document