Suchergebnisse

For centuries, the writ of habeas corpus has served as an important safeguard against miscarriages of justice, and today160;it remains at the center of some of the most contentious issues of our timeamong them terrorism, immigration, crime, and the death penalty. 160;Yet, in recent decades, habeas has been seriously abused. In this book, Nancy J. King and Joseph L. Hoffmann argue that habeas should be exercised with greater prudence. Through historical, empirical, and legal analysis, as well as illustrative case studies, the authors examine the current use of the writ in the United States and offer sound reform proposals to help ensure its ongoing vitality in todays justice system. Comprehensive and thoroughly grounded in a modern understanding of habeas corpus, this informative book will be an insightful read for legal scholars and anyone interested in the importance of habeas corpus for American government. 160.

In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court, in a powerful and eloquent majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, vindicated the right of a non-U.S. citizen, held in custody at a military base outside the United States, to use the writ to challenge the legality of his incarceration.1 Boumediene was a triumph of both the individual petitioner and the judiciary over the powers of the executive, and represents a high-water mark in the long and celebrated history of habeas.

This Essay argues that federal habeas review of state criminal cases squanders resources the federal government should be using to help states reform their systems of defense representation. A 2007 empirical study reveals that federal habeas review is inaccessible to most state prisoners convicted of non-capital crimes, and offers no realistic hope of relief for those who reach federal court. As a means of correcting or deterring constitutional error in non-capital cases, habeas is failing and cannot be fixed. Drawing upon these findings as well as the Supreme Court's most recent decision applying the Suspension Clause, the authors propose that Congress eliminate federal habeas review of state criminal judgments, except for cases including certain claims of actual innocence, retroactively applicable rules, or the sentence of death. The federal government should leave the review of all other state criminal judgments to the state courts and invest, instead, in a new federal initiative to encourage improved state defense services, an approach that can deter and correct constitutional error more effectively than any amount of habeas litigation ever could.

Federal courts supervise state criminal justice administration through decisions under two federal statutes, the Habeas Corpus Act and section 1983, a Civil Rights Act provision. These statutes provide overlapping review of constitutional errors. Habeas law has become too technical, limited by procedural barriers that often result in prisoners' losing their constitutional claims; moreover, the overlap between the two statutes adds further confusion. The theoretical basis for this complicated system of duplicative litigation no longer exists. Because the most important law of criminal procedure is now completely federal, state courts have no institutional reason to resist its application in favor of their own. Habeas law should be reformed and simplified to protect the goals of criminal procedure: innocence and deterrence of unreasonable state-court constitutional interpretations. Section 1983 litigation revisiting issues that the plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to raise in state court or on habeas should be curtailed, unless the plaintiff demonstrates that one of those courts has ruled in his favor.