by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 1, 2020 8:47 am
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took a small step further down a road it has already traveled too far–bogging down federal habeas corpus cases by making them more like regular civil litigation in federal courts. The direct effect of Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943, will not be large, but the overall problem it contributes to is huge.
by Kent Scheidegger · May 4, 2020 8:04 am
The U.S. Supreme Court moved swiftly today to resolve the question of whether its April 20 decision on nonunanimous juries applies retroactively to cases on federal habeas corpus. The correct answer is clearly “no.” Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 27, 2020 7:42 am
Whenever the Supreme Court makes a significant change in the law — as it did last week when it overruled its prior approval of nonunanimous juries in state criminal cases, see this post — the question arises of what to do about cases that have already been tried under the old rule.
Today the high court sent back a bunch of cases from Louisiana and Oregon for reconsideration in light of the Ramos case. Justice Alito noted, “I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided on remand.” Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 25, 2020 1:48 pm
In the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Congress cracked down on prisoners making repeated collateral attacks on their convictions and sentences. AEPDA included a very strict rule for successive petitions by state prisoners in 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(1)&(2). A less stringent rule for federal prisoners was added to the end of the separate section for federal-prisoner collateral review, §2255, language that is now designated subdivision (h) of that section.
Does the rule for state prisoners also apply to federal prisoners? Of course not. I’m surprised anyone ever thought it did. Yet it appears that six federal courts of appeals have so held. On Monday, the Supreme Court turned down a case attempting to raise the issue, but Justice Kavanaugh noted the Court should address it soon. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 27, 2020 1:54 pm
The Federalist Society has a podcast on McKinney v. Arizona by Arizona Solicitor General O.H. Skinner, who argued the case for the State.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 30, 2020 11:52 am
In the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Congress clamped down hard on repeated habeas corpus petitions by prisoners. Under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b), “second or successive” petitions are only allowed under very narrow circumstances.
But what happens if a prisoner obtains partial relief from his judgment and a new judgment is entered? Does that reset the petition counter to zero, giving him full range to attack the judgment on any ground?
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 17, 2020 4:56 pm
What does it take to wipe out a conviction? Normally, it takes reversal on appeal, a pardon from the governor (in most states) or president (for federal offenses), or a successful collateral attack on the conviction. In the latter, another court finds that the judgment was illegal.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summarily reversed a decision of the federal district court and directed it to nullify a conviction upheld by the California Supreme Court. This action was not because the conviction is unjust, not because it is illegal under current law, not because the case has been made for creating a new rule, but purely because the California Attorney General, as lawyer for the prison warden, switched sides and stopped defending the conviction, over the vehement objection of the San Bernardino District Attorney, who represented the People in the criminal case. What is going on here?
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED