Missing the Forest for the Trees: Federal Habeas Corpus and the Piecemeal Problem in Actual Innocence Cases

S. R. Hartung
{"title":"Missing the Forest for the Trees: Federal Habeas Corpus and the Piecemeal Problem in Actual Innocence Cases","authors":"S. R. Hartung","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2306202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The DNA exoneration data stemming from the Innocence Movement exposes a harsh reality in our criminal justice system: existing post-conviction review procedures fail to accurately identify and remedy wrongful convictions of the innocent. While the layers of review available upon conviction are seemingly exhaustive, in fact, the factually innocent prisoner is confronted with little more than a facade of protection. At the federal habeas stage, several provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [AEDPA] operate to foreclose viable claims of innocence. Further, the federal courts entertain second or successive habeas petitions in a piecemeal fashion, if they do so at all. This “piecemeal approach” negatively impacts prisoners raising claims of factual innocence, in light of their typically pro se status and incarceration. In reviewing each successive habeas petition in isolation, without regard to previous claims, the courts often miss the forest for the trees, allowing innocent prisoners to remain in custody.This Article discusses the piecemeal problem inherent in federal habeas review procedures, provides a case illustration, and advocates for a broader reading of the “evidence as a whole” language in AEDPA’s 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b)(2). This broader interpretation, already adopted by the Fourth Circuit, would allow courts to review a petitioner’s successive habeas claims in the aggregate, and thus, more readily identify cognizable claims of factual innocence. This Article contributes to the ongoing debate as to how the competing post-conviction interests of finality and fairness should be recalibrated in light of the DNA exoneration data brought forth by the Innocence Movement.","PeriodicalId":348264,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2306202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The DNA exoneration data stemming from the Innocence Movement exposes a harsh reality in our criminal justice system: existing post-conviction review procedures fail to accurately identify and remedy wrongful convictions of the innocent. While the layers of review available upon conviction are seemingly exhaustive, in fact, the factually innocent prisoner is confronted with little more than a facade of protection. At the federal habeas stage, several provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [AEDPA] operate to foreclose viable claims of innocence. Further, the federal courts entertain second or successive habeas petitions in a piecemeal fashion, if they do so at all. This “piecemeal approach” negatively impacts prisoners raising claims of factual innocence, in light of their typically pro se status and incarceration. In reviewing each successive habeas petition in isolation, without regard to previous claims, the courts often miss the forest for the trees, allowing innocent prisoners to remain in custody.This Article discusses the piecemeal problem inherent in federal habeas review procedures, provides a case illustration, and advocates for a broader reading of the “evidence as a whole” language in AEDPA’s 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(b)(2). This broader interpretation, already adopted by the Fourth Circuit, would allow courts to review a petitioner’s successive habeas claims in the aggregate, and thus, more readily identify cognizable claims of factual innocence. This Article contributes to the ongoing debate as to how the competing post-conviction interests of finality and fairness should be recalibrated in light of the DNA exoneration data brought forth by the Innocence Movement.
只见树木不见森林:联邦人身保护令和实际无罪案件中的零零碎碎问题
来自“无罪运动”的DNA免责数据暴露了我们刑事司法系统中的一个残酷现实:现有的定罪后审查程序未能准确识别和纠正对无辜者的错误定罪。虽然定罪后可进行的层层审查似乎是详尽无遗的,但事实上,事实上无辜的囚犯所面临的只不过是表面上的保护。在联邦人身保护令阶段,《反恐怖主义和有效死刑法》(AEDPA)的若干条款被用于排除可能的无罪主张。此外,如果联邦法院受理第二次或连续的人身保护申请,它们也会以零零碎碎的方式受理。这种“零敲碎打的方法”对囚犯提出的事实上无罪的主张产生了负面影响,因为他们通常处于自我辩护状态和监禁状态。在单独审查每一个连续的人身保护申请时,不考虑以前的请求,法院往往只见树木不见森林,允许无辜的囚犯继续被拘留。本文讨论了联邦人身保护令审查程序中固有的零碎问题,提供了一个案例说明,并主张对AEDPA 28 U.S.C.第2244(b)(2)条中的“证据作为一个整体”语言进行更广泛的解读。第四巡回法院已经采用了这种更广泛的解释,它将允许法院对申请人连续提出的人身保护申请进行总体审查,从而更容易识别可认定的事实无罪的主张。这篇文章有助于正在进行的辩论,即如何根据无罪运动带来的DNA免责数据重新校准最终性和公平性的定罪后竞争利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信