NCJ Number
61688
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 16 Issue: 2 Dated: (FALL 1978) Pages: 163-182
Date Published
1978
Length
20 pages
Annotation
THE NECESSITY FOR ESTABLISHING A STANDARD TO BE USED IN DETERMINING WHEN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS REQUIRED IS DISCUSSED IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN BLACKLEDGE V. ALLISON.
Abstract
BEFORE BLACKLEDGE V. ALLISON (1977), LOWER FEDERAL COURTS STRUGGLED WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A HEARING ON A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS REQUIRED WHERE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION CHALLENGED PRESUMABLY TRUTHFUL RESPONSES MADE AT THE TIME OF THE GUILTY PLEA. NO CLEAR STANDARD HAD EMERGED FROM PRE-BLACKLEDGE CASES AND THE APPROACHES TAKEN WERE DIVERGENT AND OFTEN INCONSISTENT. THE NUMBER OF MERITLESS CLAIMS FOR WHICH HEARINGS WERE GRANTED WAS NOT REDUCED, JUDICIAL TIME AND ENERGY WERE WASTED ON MEANINGLESS HEARINGS, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR STANDARD, DISTRICT COURT JUDGES WERE VESTED WITH GREAT DISCRETION IN RESOLVING POSTCONVICTION CLAIMS. BLACKLEDGE RESOLVED PART OF THIS PROBLEM BY ADOPTING A BALANCING STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHEN A CLAIM SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED AND PERMITTING THE USE OF PROCEDURES SHORT OF HEARING TO RESOLVE THE FACTUAL ISSUES RAISED BY HABEAS PETITIONERS. HOWEVER, BLACKLEDGE FAILED TO SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATE A STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHEN A HEARING IS REQUIRED. A CLEAR AND UNIFORM STANDARD IS NEEDED TO HARMONIZE THE TWO COMPETING PUBLIC POLICIES OF GUARANTEEING THE FINALITY OF GUILTY PLEA CONVICTIONS AND ASSURING THAT CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATIONS RESULTING IN WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS DO NOT GO UNREMEDIED. THE STANDARD SHOULD REQUIRE THE PETITIONER ACCOMPANY HIS ALLEGATIONS WITH EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS CLAIM BEFORE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WILL BE ORDERED. FOOTNOTE REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED). (LWM)