NCJ Number
30059
Journal
Georgetown Law Review Volume: 63 Issue: 5 Dated: (MAY 1975) Pages: 1143-1158
Date Published
1975
Length
16 pages
Annotation
THE AVAILABILITY AND TYPE OF FEDERAL RELIEF FROM ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE ANALYZED, INTERPRETED, AND APPLIED IN LIGHT OF THE 'RACETO-THE-COURTHOUSE' AND 'RELIEF REQUESTED' STANDARDS.
Abstract
THE AUTHOR POINTS OUT THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS DEVELOPED A TWO-PRONGED TEST TO REVIEW INTERVENTION PETITIONS - THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD FOCUS FIRST ON WHETHER A STATE FORUM EXISTS AND THEN ON WHETHER THAT FORUM WILL PROVIDE THE FEDERAL PLANTIFF AN ADEQUATE, ADJUDICATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM. HE CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THIS ANALYSIS MUST BE APPLIED WITH GREAT CARE IN COMPLEX FACTUAL SITUATIONS TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WITHOUT AGGRAVATING STATE-FEDERAL TENSION THROUGH UNNECESSARY INTERFERENCE WITH LEGITIMATE STATE INTERESTS, THE APPLICATION OF THE ADEQUATE FORUM TEST IS DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE STATE INITIATES A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SOON AFTER THE STATE DEFENDANT FILES A FEDERAL INTERVENTION PETITION AND IN CASES INVOLVING MILTIPLE PROSECUTIONS (INCLUDING PARALLEL DEFENDANT AND CONTINUING CONDUCT SITUATIONS). THE DATE-OF-FILING STANDARD GOVERNING FEDERAL INTERVENTION IS REJECTED IN FAVOR OF A STANDARD REQUIRING AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER AN ADEQUATE STATE FORUM EXISTS AT THE TIME OF THE FEDERAL HEARING. THE AUTHOR ALSO SUGGESTS THAT FEDERAL COURTS DIVIDE THE PLANTIFF'S COURSE OF CONDUCT, IN MULTIPLE PROSECUTIONS, INTO TWO PARTS - THAT WHICH OCCURRED BEFORE THE ARREST AND THAT WHICH OCCURED AFTER - ANALYZING EACH PART IN LIGHT OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE PENDING STATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL PLANTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM. A DISCUSSION OF THE PROPER RELIEF TO BE AFFORDED FEDERAL PLANTIFFS ANALYZES THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE SUPREME, COURT DISTINCTION BETWEEN DECLARATORY JUDGEMENTS AND INJUNCTIONS. THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT ALTHOUGH NOT ALL OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS ADVANCED FOR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DECLARATORY JUDGEMENTS AND INJUNCTIONS CAN WITHSTAND CAREFUL ANALYSIS, THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION THAT DECLARATORY JUDGEMENTS ARE LESS INTRUSIVE THAN INJUNCTIONS IS WARRANTED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)