NCJ Number
183820
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 90 Issue: 2 Dated: Winter 2000 Pages: 467-598
Date Published
2000
Length
131 pages
Annotation
This paper argues that the opt-in provisions of the Federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Chapter 154, "Special Habeas Corpus Procedures in Capital Cases") are flawed and ensure finality at the cost of justice.
Abstract
Chapter 154 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) mandates greater restrictions on Federal habeas corpus review in exchange for appointing competent counsel to indigent capital defendants for State post-conviction review. Far from ensuring that prisoners receive qualified and skilled attorneys, the provisions expose prisoners to ineffective counsel without remedy or protections. Furthermore, the opt-in provisions are creating Federal-State tensions, as States seeking to opt in feel thwarted by the Federal judiciary. This paper explores these and other issues in several different ways. Part II is a comprehensive examination of the history and background of the opt-in provisions. This section examines the developments in and debate over habeas corpus and shows how this culminated in the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Habeas Corpus in Capital Cases. This section also reviews the legislative history to show how the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee became codified in the AEDPA. Part III reviews the litigation history of the opt-in provisions. To date, 16 States have litigated their opt-in status, either through prisoner declaratory judgments against opt-in status or through normal habeas corpus review; no State has qualified for the restrictions on Federal habeas corpus review. Part IV is original research into State intent. It investigates whether States are still seeking opt-in status and, if so, by what means and why. Part V provides legal analysis and critique of the opt-in provisions, given their history and the States' responses. 783 notes