Fed Courts Outline: 26 Pages
A. Habeas: Scope of the Writ
Download 146.5 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- B. Habeas: Teague : If you’re contesting your conviction on habeas, do you get the benefit of a “new rule”
- 1. What is a “new rule”
- 2. Retroactivity
- C. Habeas: AEDPA
A. Habeas: Scope of the Writ*US Law: Constitution: suspension clause; stat: 28 USC § 2254: only if “in custody” and in violation of US Const/laws/treaties. *RULE: “Custody”: includes mental institution custody; parole and probation. *RULE: gradual expansion of habeas jur *RULE: habeas is not just checking for valid jur; as broad as § 2254; any claim of const’l error in st ct. Brown v. Allen (1953). *NB, Jackson’s concurrence: “We’re not final because we’re infallible, but we’re infallible only because we’re final” *NB: State judges hate it: fed’ism (fed threat to state sovereignty); Comity (respect for st courts; Finality; Judicial Resources *RULE: Habeas ct should hear claim of insufficient evidence to convict if raised in st ct. Jackson v. VA (1979). *RULE: Habeas ct should hear claim of racial discrim in choosing grand jury foreman. Rose v. Mitchell (1979). *RULE: Habeas ct should hear claim re: Miranda (5A right not to incriminate is not like 4A). Withrow (1993). *RULE: Habeas ct should not hear claim of 4A violation if fully and fairly litigated below. Stone v. Powell (1976). *BUT: Fed habeas ct should hear claim of 6A violation if counsel’s failure was 4A. Kimmelman v. Morrison. *RULE: Habeas ct should not hear claim of actual innocence: no const’l right to new evidence. Herrera v. Collins (1993). *BUT: Habeas ct should hear claim of act innocence (no other const’l claim) if evidence strong. House v. Bell (2006). *BUT: SCOTUS might sit in original habeas to hear Herrera claim of actual innocence. Troy Davis. *RULE: Habeas ct should hear claim of IAC by appellate attorney for failure to raise IAC claim about failure by trial attorney if state doesn’t allow IAC claim on direct appeal. Martinez v. Ryan (2012).
If “old rule”: on direct review (conviction not yet final): yes If “old rule”: on habeas: yes If “new rule”: on direct review (conviction not yet final): yes If “new rule”: on habeas: no, unless Teague 1 or 2 applies. *RULE: Teague 1 & 2: if a new rule is decided after your conviction is final, you don’t get the benefit on habeas review unless:
1. What is a “new rule”?*def new rule: breaks ground; result not dictated by precedent; imposes new obligation on state or feds. Teague. *RULE: Court wants cases to be “new rules”! That way rights are not expanded. But will only create them on direct review. *Butler v. McKellar (1990): Butler’s conviction becomes final post-Edwards (if prisoner invokes 5A, gotta stop interrogation) but pre-Roberson (gotta stop even if 2d interrogation is on a diff’t topic). Can Butler sue on Habeas and cite Roberson? H: No, Roberson is a new rule, Butler can’t cite it on habeas. *Chaidez v. U.S.: 1: D’s conviction becomse final. 2: SCOTUS decides Padilla v. KY (effective counsel includes advice about deportation). 3: Can Chaidez sue on habeas and cite Padilla? PROF prediction: it’s a new rule, no benefit. *RULE: State court discretion: can apply a new SCOTUS case retroactively even if a fed court wouldn’t. Danforth v. MN (2008).
*RULE: threshold: SCOTUS will only announce a new rule on direct review, won’t even hear an appeal from habeas if it would create a new rule (because would force it to declare a new rule, then deny it to the party before it). *BUT: Lockyer: if Teague = 2254(d), maybe not a threshold issue. *BUT: n.b., new rules apply fully to everyone still on direct review. Griffith (1987). E.g., SCOTUS case decided before final appeal. C. Habeas: AEDPA*AEDPA: habeas court can’t grant relief unless the state court conviction was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, federal law clearly established by SCOTUS” (§ 2254(d)(1)) or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts (d(2)). *RULE 1: “contrary to”: If state court decision was opposite of fed law, correct the error. Williams v. Taylor (2000). *RULE 2: “unreasonable application of law”: *RULE: RP std: if state court got it a little wrong, we’ll let it slide. Williams v. Taylor (2000). *CONC: “incorrect” std: if SCOTUS would rule the other way, we’ll look at it and will do so! (Stevens) *RULE: “unreasonable” depends on rule’s specificity; if general, court has more leeway. Yarborough (2004). *RULE 3: unreasonable determination of the facts. § 2254(d)(2). *RULE: important ways AEDPA departs from Teague
*RULE: fed courts have discretion to treat 2254(d) as a threshold issue or not. Lockyer v. Andrade (2003). *RULE: If SCOTUS hands down new rule after first appeal but before second appeal, and second appeal is not granted cert, then it’s Teague, not Griffith, and you don’t get benefit of the new rule. Greene v. Fisher (2011 9-0). *NB: If PA S.Ct. had accepted review, should have based it on Gray even if Gray were new rule, Griffith!!!
Directory: sites -> default -> files -> upload documents upload documents -> Torts Outline Daniel Ricks upload documents -> Torts outline Functions of Tort Law upload documents -> Constitutional Law (Yoshino, Fall 2009) Table of Contents upload documents -> Arrest: (1) pc? (2) Warrant required? upload documents -> Civil procedure outline upload documents -> Criminal Procedure: Police Investigation upload documents -> Regulation of Agricultural gmos in China upload documents -> Rodriguez Con Law Outline Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation upload documents -> Standing Justiciability (§ 501 Legal/beneficial owner of exclusive right? “Arising under” jx?) 46 Statute of Limitations Run? 46 Is Π an Author? 14 Is this a Work of Joint Authorship? 14 Is it a Work for Hire? upload documents -> Jurisdiction Personal Two inquiries Download 146.5 Kb. Share with your friends:
|