NCJ Number
14133
Journal
William and Mary Law Review Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Dated: (WINTER 1973) Pages: 265-285
Date Published
1973
Length
21 pages
Annotation
REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF A 1963 SUPREME COURT CASE WHICH PERMITS FEDERAL JUDGES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO REFUSE TO ENTERTAIN ON THE MERITS SUCCESSIVE HABEAS APPLICATIONS.
Abstract
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THESE 1963 GUIDELINES ANNOUNCED IN SANDERS V. U.S. REQUIRES A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE TO DETERMINE INITIALLY WHETHER A PRIOR PETITION BY THE APPLICANT ALLEGING THE SAME GROUNDS FOR RELIEF HAS BEEN DENIED ON THE MERITS. ALTHOUGH THERE APPEARS TO BE LITTLE DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING WHEN THE SAME GROUNDS FOR RELIEF HAVE BEEN ASSERTED, A QUESTION FREQUENTLY PRESENTED IS WHETHER A PRIOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT A HEARING WAS BASED SOLELY ON DEFICIENT PLEADING OF THE ISSUES AND THUS WAS NOT 'ON THE MERITS', AS NOTED BY THE COURT IN SANDERS, WHEN FACTUAL ISSUES ARE PRESENTED THERE CAN BE NO DECISION ON THE MERITS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, UNLESS THE RECORDS AND FILES 'CONCLUSIVELY' RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADVERSELY TO THE APPLICANT. THE MOST DIFFICULTY WITH THE SANDERS GUIDELINES, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN IN APPLYING THE 'ENDS OF JUSTICE' ASPECT OF THAT TEST. THIS REQUIRES AN ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER 'THE ENDS OF JUSTICE' WOULD BE SERVED BY A REFUSAL TO REDETERMINE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF - AN IMPRECISE STANDARD AT BEST. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)