I have been accumulating some links over the past six weeks. Here they are:
Here's a blog post (by someone with a very similar last name to mine) discussing the potential impact of the upcoming Supreme Court case of Martinez v. Ryan.
Sticking with that case for a second, the ABA has filed an amicus brief in support of the habeas petitioner.
A blog post about the upcoming Supreme Court case of Gonzalez v. Thaler.
Justice delayed, justice denied: The subject matter of that linked article will make any fair person's blood boil. A DJ in California (who was appointed by GWB) has been sitting for over five years on at least three different R&R's that have recommended habeas grants. It can't be written off as the DJ being slow on habeas cases generally, as he appears to act much more swiftly on R&R's that recommend that habeas be denied (of course, those can be pretty easy to review, so it may not be fair to compare). Sadly, one of the petitioners died while the DJ sat on the R&R recommending habeas relief.
And to make your blood boil further, there is a quote at the end of the article from Nancy King, who, as we all know, is on the offensive to try and end habeas. In the article, she criticizes petitioners for abusing habeas. So, let me get this straight: a federal judge has been delaying decisions for years in cases where there are real concerns that there have been constitutional violations, and it is the petitioners who are abusing the system. Good to know.
Interesting article about a movie called "Crime After Crime." It focuses on the reinvestigation of multiple cases of battered women serving lengthy sentences. The reinvestigations occurred after California passed a law in 2002 that allowed abused individuals to introduce evidence of the abuse into evidence in a criminal trial. An organization called the Habeas Project took the lead in the reinvestigations and the legal advocacy.
U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven of Orlando issued a ruling Wednesday that struck down the state's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control law, saying it violates due process because it doesn't require that prosecutors prove that a person knew he or she possessed illegal drugs.
The article claims that the decision could have an impact on thousands of cases. The name of the case is Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections.
One house of the California's State legislature has passed a law that would prohibit convictions based solely on a jailhouse informant's testimony. The article talks about one person who was convicted based exclusively on jailhouse informants. He later obtained habeas relief from the Ninth Circuit.
An article about a habeas petition filed down in Mississippi. Petitioner was a doctor who was convicted of killing his wife. He maintains that his wife committed suicide.
An article about the habeas petition filed by Tom Noe, the rare-coin dealer who stole millions from the state of Ohio. I believe that scandal nearly took down the entire Republican Party in Ohio (or something like that).
The Fifth Circuit recently showed some sympathy for a habeas petitioner in Texas who claimed that he was wrongfully convicted. However, the court stated that, due to the AEDPA, there was nothing that it could do for him. Here's the closing paragraph:
It is beyond regrettable that a possibly innocent man will not receive a new trial in the face of the preposterously unreliable testimony of the victim and sole eyewitness to the crime for which he was convicted. But our hands are tied by the AEDPA, preventing our review of Kinsel's attack on his Louisiana postconviction proceedings, so we dutifully dismiss his claim.
On the other hand, the Fifth Circuit granted habeas relief to a petitioner with the amazing name of Princess LaCaze. It's an interesting case.
The Third Circuit recently ruled that Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively in habeas cases (for some reason, I almost wrote "radioactively" there; not sure why, but it also seems to fit).