By JK
I have to admit, the decision in Williams has left me so upset that it has dulled my enthusiasm for Habeas Day next Monday, 2/25. Why should I get excited for a Supreme Court habeas case when the Court seems to bludgeon every habeas petitioner that comes before it? Okay, that's not true. There were a couple of favorable habeas decisions last term (e.g. Martinez, Lafler). Nevertheless, Williams was pretty painful; I am still feeling the sting.
But I really should look forward, and not obsess over the (recent) past. And doing that, we have these two cases to be heard on Monday. And I guess that there is plenty of room for optimism:
(1) McQuiggin v. Perkins, 12-126
Issue: Whether, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, there is an actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner show an extraordinary circumstance that “prevented timely filing” of a habeas petition, and if so, whether there is an additional actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner demonstrate that “he has been pursuing his rights diligently.
(2) Trevino v. Thaler, 11-10870
Issue: Whether Martinez v. Ryan applies when a State court system allows a defendant, in some circumstances, to bring an IAC claim on appeal as opposed to requiring all IAC claims to be brought in a post-conviction proceeding
Let's hope for the best.
I can't help myself and I must turn back to Williams for a second. After living with it for a day now, I have convinced myself that I must stop worrying about rebuttable presumptions and just learn to love them. The Supreme Court seems to think highly of them in habeas cases. They recently popped up in Holland and then in Richter and now in Williams. I was thinking that, as a habeas litigator, maybe I should try and incorporate them more into my life. The most appropriate place would probably be as a parent. I'll just establish the edict with my kid that there is a rebuttable presumption that everything I say is correct. I actually think that it's good/fair parenting. The kid has to presume that I am right about everything (time to go to bed, McDonald's is bad for you, cats are better than dogs, etc.), but the child is given a chance to show that I am wrong. I guess it could open up a can of worms, but it is pretty fair though. On the other hand, it would probably be easier to just stick to the Scalia way, as discussed in his concurring opinion: everything I say is correct and there is no way to challenge it.
Comments