Some other stuff I've seen:
The Ninth Circuit Blog has created a great handbook for navigating the new habeas landscape as a result of the restrictive decisions from the Supreme Court's last term, namely Ricther, Pinholster and Moore. It's called "Recent Supreme Court And Ninth Circuit Habeas Decisions: Why We Need Full Factual Development And Preservation Of Issues In State Court Litigation" writted by Stephen Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Defender for the District of Oregon.
In a similar vein, a new article has been posted on SSRN called "Habeas After Pinholster" by Samuel Wiseman. Looks like it is going to get published next year in the Boston College Law Review. This is from the abstract:
By limiting federal review to the state record for claims already adjudicated in state court, Pinholster places an enormous premium on the adequate development of that record. In the wake of the decision, petitioners denied the ability to develop their claims in state court will seek alternative solutions. Indeed, several state defendants already have begun to pursue some of the potential paths around Pinholster, suggesting what is to come. The resulting challenges will raise fundamental, unanswered questions about AEDPA, the Suspension Clause, and the role of due process in postconviction review. This Article explores likely paths toward filling the gaps that Pinholster, together with the Court’s recent decisions in Boumediene v. Bush, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, and Skinner v. Switzer, has created in both the literature and the jurisprudence.
Here's a fascinating article about a habeas case up in Connecticut before DJ Charles Haight, who used to sit in SDNY. Petitioner, who was convicted of committing a double murder, has maintained his innocence throughout the case. But he's not the only one to say that he's innocent. Both a police detective and the FBI, after an 18-month investigation, concluded that he was innocent and had been framed. He has now been incarcerated for 21 years.
Not something new, but I did come across this comment from 2010 in the Yale Law Review about whether habeas corpus relief is available based on a reverse-Batson challenge (i.e. when the court improperly grants a prosecutor's Batson motion and overrules a defense peremptory challenge on the ground that it was racially-motivated). It addresses the question of whether habeas relief is now unavailable after the Supreme Court's decision in Rivera v. Illinois. It argues that it remains available (even though I think the common understanding is that it is not).
Appeal and Habeas has a post about a recent Ninth Circuit decision in which the court found equitable tolling of the statute of limitations where petitioner's attorney took $20,000 and never bothered to file the petition.
Comments