Next week, the Supreme Court will hear argument in the capital habeas case of Magwood v. Patterson.
The issue is whether a habeas petitioner can raise a claim in a petition challenging a judgment of resentencing where he could have raised the claim initially in the first petition that vacated his original sentence.
SCOTUSblog's preview is here.
Actually, my statement of the issue does not quite capture the facts. The petitioner was sentenced to death. On habeas, he was granted relief and the sentence was vacated. He was then resentenced to death. On direct appeal from the judgment of resentencing, he raised for the first time a constitutional challenge that he could have raised on the original appeal from the judgment but did not. The state courts appeared to have rejected this claim on the merits in the appeal from resentencing.
Even though this is a capital case, it will impact every type of habeas case. I believe this situation could arise in almost any criminal case.
I actually think the arguments on both sides make sense. So this will be a close call. Could even be a 5-4 breakdown. My initial take is that this should not be considered a second or successive petition. I think the fairest reading of the statute is that, because he was challenging a new judgment, then it is not a second or successive petition, regardless of whether or not he could have raised the issue earlier. While I think petitioner has the better argument here as to the reading of the statute, Respondent's arguments are probably more in line with the oppressive goals of the AEDPA, which seeks to limit petitioners to a single habeas petition.
From my own federalism/policy point of view, it does not make sense to me that the federal court would put up a procedural block here where the state court did not. If the state court had no problem with a defendant raising the claim at that point in the proceeding, then I don't see why the federal court should be more strict. It feels like a gratuitous kick in the gut, if you will.
In the end, I believe the outcome will be colored by the judge's view of the goals of habeas. For the judges who view habeas as a crucial component of the criminal justice process, I am guessing that they'll read the statute as petitioner sees it. For those judges who think that the AEDPA was the best thing to happen since cable television, I am guessing they'll say that the policy goals of the AEDPA should dictate the outcome.
What to say about the judge who doesn't fall into either camp? It's probably that judge's vote that everyone will be fighting for.
Comments