Time: Wed Mar 12 07:32:07 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA06052; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 06:35:16 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 07:05:23 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: SNET: Habeas Corpus? (fwd) <snip> >TO: ringup >FROM: DALE ROBERTSON (habeascorpus@hotmail.com) >SUBJECT: GUTTING HABEAS CORPUS FOR STATE PRISONERS > >You post is one of considerable interest to me. >I am pleased to provide a reprint of the >National Trial Lawyer Association's response >to the legislation last year. It is a fair overview >of the subject in reponse to your request. >Although a bit broken up due solely to the nature >of the file that I retrieved off the net, >it is still readable and will provide a significant >response to your question. > >Let me know if you wish expansion of the answer to your question? > >Constitutionally, > >Dale Robertson >habeascorpus@hotmail.com >===================================== > >>>>Some prisoners we are trying to help are being told that after Apil 24, >>>>1997, Habeas Corpus won't be allowed, according to the Anti-Terrorist >>>>Bill passed in 1995. >>>> >>>>This is probably not true. Or if so, only regarding death row prisoners. >>>> >>>>Could someone research this or ask their Representative to provide a copy >>>>of that Law in that regard? >>>> >>>>Candace >>>>Juno only, email >>>>ringup@juno.com >>>>417-673-1906 fax >>>> >>>>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >>>>-> Posted by: ringup@juno.com (Candace C Turner) > > > > Habeas Corpus > > > Since our Nation's founding, the "Great Writ" of > habeas corpus has provided a "fail-safe" mechanism, > a last opportunity for independent federal courts to > ensure that state convictions and sentences -- including > death sentences -- have actually been imposed through > our human system of justice within the bounds of the > Constitution. In recent years, however, habeas has > become a political scapegoat, mistakenly blamed for > what some legislators believe are unreasonable delays > in carrying out death sentences. Far from being Latin > for the death penalty, however, habeas corpus is the > most important constitutional insurance of our > fundamental rights and liberties. Indeed, > notwithstanding the political rhetoric, death penalty > cases comprise only 1 percent or less of all habeas > corpus cases, and on average actually take less time > for the federal courts to process than do other types of > habeas cases. > > NACDL remains opposed to the unconstitutional and > unconscionable cutbacks in access to habeas corpus > review rended by the recently enacted Title I of the > "1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" > (the Act). We call upon Congress to revisit the > subject, and to retract its hasty gutting of habeas > corpus. Moreover, several essential, affirmative > measures must be enacted by Congress immediately, > as discussed below. > > > The Great Writ of Liberty, Habeas Corpus is a > Critically Important Safeguard of all Americans' > Constitutional Rights and Liberties > > Placement in prison, but especially the finality of the > death penalty, warrants all of the procedural and > substantive safeguards our system of laws provides. > As it is, reliable studies indicate that federal courts > grant relief (often ordering retrial or resentencing) in > up to 40 percent of the state-imposed death sentences > they review. Habeas corpus provides a critical means > of uncovering police and prosecutorial misconduct, > which all too often causes wrongful convictions. In the > past few years alone, numerous cases have come to > light in which inmates, after spending years in prison > or even on death row, have been proven innocent of > the crimes for which they were waiting to die. > > Ask Randall Dale Adams, whose case was the subject > of a feature film, The Thin Blue Line. Adams' > conviction for murdering a Dallas, Texas police officer > was overturned when a federal court, on habeas > review, uncovered proof that prosecutors had coerced > an eyewitness to identify Adams after the witness had > already identified another man. Adams was released > after spending 12 years in prison. Ask Clarence > Brandley, a black janitor at a Texas high school, who > was convicted in 1980 of raping and murdering a > female student at the school. After spending nearly ten > years on death row, Brandley was released when an > appeals court discovered evidence that two other > janitors, both white, had committed the crime, and > that prosecutors had railroaded Brandley out of racist > motives. Or ask Kenneth Ellman, whose due process, > liberty, property, and Second Amendment rights were > only taken seriously by a federal court after he had > been unconstitutionally incarcerated on a contempt > charge rendered and roundly upheld > (unconstitutionally but oh so "reasonably") by the > New York state court system. These are but a few of > the recent cases in which the fallibility of the criminal > justice system has been demonstrated. > > Sociologists Bedau, Radelet, and Putnam, in their > authoritative 1992 study, In Spite of Innocence, > document 23 innocent people who have been wrongly > executed in the United States in this century. This, > even without the habeas corpus "deform" provisions > recently passed as part of the runaway legislative train > misnamed the "1996 Antiterrorism and Effective > Death Penalty Act," which will vastly exacerbate the > probabilities of such grave injustice. And this, before > the doubly Draconian congressional defunding this > year of the Post-Conviction Defender Organizations > (fka Death Penalty Resource Centers), which were > critically important, systemic pockets of legal > resources and expertise for life and death habeas > cases. See NACDL Legislative Policy, Indigent > Defense Funding. > > > Title I of the "1996 Antiterrorism and Effective > Death Penalty Act": the Deformation of Habeas > Corpus > > Despite the obvious need to preserve and even > increase access of convicted citizens to effective, > independent post-conviction review, to ensure the > truthfulness and justice of their convictions and > sentences, Congress passed and the President has now > signed (effective April 24, 1996), a habeas law > revision severely limiting such access. The Act limits > both state and federal inmates to one habeas petition, > with "deference" to be afforded even unconstitutional > state court decisions; and sets up arbitrary time limits > for the first time in the history of the Republic, on the > filing of petitions for constitutional review and relief, > and on the federal courts for hearing and rendering > decisions -- again, even in cases of life or death. > > Specifically, the Act creates arbitrary and virtually > insurmountable obstacles for prisoners by requiring > federal courts to accept certain determinations of the > trial courts even if they are constitutionally wrong, so > long as they are not so "unreasonably" wrong as to > flagrantly violate the smidgen of well-established > United States Supreme Court precedent. For instance, > as several lawyers, litigants and others in the pro-life > protest community told Congress and the President, > this threatens their ability to engage in First > Amendment-protected protest activity, because the > United States Supreme Court has yet to establish > precisely, in all cases, how these interests are to be > balanced against the privacy and other rights of those > seeking to have or to perform abortions. (The > Supreme Court has a case up for decision on this > subject this very Term, in fact, Schenck v. Pro Choice > Network Western, N.Y.) The Act's manifestly unjust > "deference" provision is far beyond anything the > Supreme Court has ever countenanced. It is something > we have not seen in this country, at least since the > 1867 Habeas Corpus Act -- that is, since the Civil > War supposedly confirmed, at great human sacrifice, > that we are indeed one Nation, joined together by one > constitutional charter of individual rights and liberties > paramount to the proclaimed prerogatives of any > governmental entity. See e.g., Wright v. West, 112 > S.Ct. 2482, 2497 (1992) (O'Connor, J.) ("We have > always held that federal courts, even on habeas, have > an independent obligation to say what the law is"); > Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 > (1803) (establishing that it is the > > > >======================== > > >\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ >"We do well to bear in mind the extraordinary prestige of >the great writ, Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum in Anglo- >American jurisprudence: "The most Celebrated writ in the >English Law." 3 Blackstone Commentaries 129. It is "a writ >antecedent to statute, and throwing its root deep into the >genius of our common law.... it is perhaps the most >important writ known to the constitutional law of england, >affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all >cases of illegal restraint or confinement. It is of >immemorial antiquity... ." > >"It's root principle is that in a civilized society, >government must always be accountable to the judiciary for >a man's imprisonment: If the imprisonment connot be shown >to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the >individual is entitled to his immediate release." > >Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391 (1963) >\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ > >Dale Robertson >habeascorpus@hotmail.com > >--------------------------------------------------------- >Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >--------------------------------------------------------- ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail