Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
University of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpusadditional works at: https://scholarship.lawuc.edu/uclr Ò* Part of the Criminal Procedure CommonsRecommended CitationNoam Biale. Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas Corpus, 83 u. Cin L. Rev. 1337 (2015) Available at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edU/uclr/vol83/iss4/7This Article is brough Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpust to you for free and open access by University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in UniveBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
rsity of Cincinnati Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Cincinnati College of Lav/ Scholarship and Publications. For more information,University of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpusnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The author was formerly a Fellow at the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama, litigating state and federal postconviction appeals in death penalty and juvenile hfe-without-parole cases. Deep gratitude is owed to Anthony G. Amsterdam, M Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpusargaret Graham, J. Benton Heath, Randy Hertz. Zachary Katznelson, Sarah Knuckey, Shalev Roisman, Erin Adele Scharff, Jennifer Rae Taylor, and the membBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
ers of the Lawyering Scholarship Colloquium at N.Y.U. School of Law for helpful comments, probing questions, and abiding encouragement.This article isUniversity of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpuseas Cor[Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging 1 {AREAS CorpusNoam ỉìiaỉe*Illis Article addresses ongoing confusion in federal habeas corpus doctrine about one of the most elemental concepts in law: reasonableness. The Supreme Court recently announced a new standard of reasonableness review for h Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpusabeas cases, intended to raise the bar state prisoners must overcome to obtain federal relief This new standard demands that errors in state court decBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
isions be so profound that "no fairminded jurist could disagree” that the result is incorrect. Scholars have decried the rigid and exacting nature of University of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpuscal framework for understanding the new habeas standard and shows that the assumptions lower courts are making about its meaning are wrong h concludes that federal courts need more data beyond the mere possibility of fairminded disagreement to find that a decision is reasonable. The Article draws on Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus scholarship and jurisprudence in other areas of law that employ reasonableness standards, and argues that the missing data should be supplied by examBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
ining the state adjudicative process. The case for focusing on state process in federal habeas cases is not new. but this Article represents the firstUniversity of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpuscommonplace in the news media: A horrific crime occurs: let’s say a murder. Police arrest a suspect and the evidence against him seems overwhelming. Perhaps he has confessed, or an eye-witness identifies him. or his co-defendants implicate him as the trigger-man. rhe suspect is tried in state court Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpusand convicted. He is sent tv prison; perhaps he is sentenced to death. The case is closed. Years later, cracks begin to appear in what previously♦ TjnBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
r Clerk tn rhe Tton. Gerard r. Lynch. United States Court of Appeals for tile Second Circuit. The airtmr was formerly a Fellow at rhe Fzjnal Justice IUniversity of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpusp gratitude » oivixl to Anthony o. Aiustcrdaiu. Margaret Graham. J. Beulou Heath. Raudy Holz. Zachary Kalarclsou. Surah Kuudxy. shake Roitman. £rm Adck Schiui'i. Jemiifer Rae Taylor, and the members oi the- Lawyering Scholarship Colloqukuu al N.Y.U. School oi Law ioi lxlpi.ll cuiuuxrits. probing que Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpusstions, and a btdmg encouragement.1337Published by University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications, 20151________ ____. UniversitBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
y of Cincinnati Law Review. Vol. 83, Iss. 4 (2015), Art. f1338UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Law Review [vol. 83looked like a solid conviction. Witnesses reUniversity of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus the prosecution withheld exculpatory- evidence.1 2 * * The defendant presents this new evidence to the state courts, but they refuse to reopen the case. He files a last-ditch, hail-Mary petition to the federal court, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The federal court faults the state for ignoring t Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpushe defendant s legal claim. It reviews the evidence anew and finds that a grave injustice occurred. The federal court grants the defendant's habeas peBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
tition and vacates the conviction or sentence. Though many years have passed, a wrong is righted?Here is a story that is seldom told but, in fact, is University of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpusndant above. The state courts deny relief. The defendant files a petition for habeas corpus in federal court. The federal court reviews the state court decision and finds compelling reasons to doubt the reliability of the defendant's conviction. However, the federal court says that the result in the Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus state court is at least debatable, and faimiinded judges could disagree about whether it is correct. The federal court presumes that the state judgesBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
who denied relief were all fairminded. Therefore, the federal court rules that their decision is not unreasonable, and denies the defendant s habeas University of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas CorpusAct of 1996 (AEDPA) and the Supreme Court’s1In tile sentencing context, correspondingly, discovery of the defendant’s intellectual disability might render hint ineligible for tlie death penalty2See eg. Death Ron Stones Joe D Ambrosio (CNN television broadcast Mm 23. 2014\Most Secret. His Conviction Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas CorpusOverturned. Man is Let Ota of Prison After 23 Years. N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 23, 2013). http: www-aytimcs.can 2013 01 24 nyreglcBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
nan•ls•let•c'at•of• pnsoBeyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus
of proof for intellectual disability violate* intellectually disabled petitioner’s Eighth Amendment rights where petitioner "failed to show that no fUniversity of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and a Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpus the reasoned judgment of the State’s higliest court." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Momgomery V. Bobby. 654 F.3d 66S. 676-S3 (6th Cư. 2011) (co banc) (state court did net unreasonably apply Brady V. Maryland where proseeuticci withheld witness statement irccn defense that asserted that witne Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement- Judging Habeas Corpusss had seen victim ahve four days after prosecution alleged defendant killed her).https://scholarship.law.uc.edU/udr/vol83/iss4/72University of Cincinnati Law ReviewVolume 83 I Issue 4Article 742217Beyond a Reasonable Disagreement: Judging Habeas CorpusNoam BialeFollow this and aGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook