NCJ Number
170735
Journal
Judges' Journal Volume: 35 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1996) Pages: 8-14,43
Date Published
1996
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article discusses whether death-penalty cases require a different, and higher, standard of habeas corpus review than cases not involving the death sentence.
Abstract
The article analyzes petitions in both State and Federal courts, and compares characteristics of petitions filed in capital and noncapital cases. Claims raised by State prisoners fell into eight categories: ineffective counsel, trial court error, prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process. The results from US district courts were combined for analysis. This study shows that petitions in death penalty cases were granted more frequently than other habeas cases in Federal courts, but less frequently by State courts. Habeas corpus reform has become another arena in which to debate the death penalty. Consequently, reform of habeas procedures in the 99 percent of the petitions from prisoners not sentenced to death is affected by the machinations around the 1 percent of the petitions that do involve capital punishment. Habeas corpus reform in capital cases should be separated from habeas reform in noncapital cases; death penalty cases do, in fact, require special handling. Tables, notes