Brief of Law Professors, Timothy P. O'Neill, et al as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellee Addolfo Davis, People v. Davis, 6 N.E.3d 709 (Illinois Supreme Court 2013) (No. 115595) (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Constitutional Right to Collateral Post-Conviction Review
2016
For years, the prevailing academic and judicial wisdom has held that, between them, Congress and the Supreme Court have rendered post-conviction habeas review all-but a dead letter. But in its January 2016 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court may have dramatically upended that understanding in holding — for the first time — that there are at least some cases in which the Constitution itself creates a right to collateral post-conviction review, i.e., cases in which a state prisoner seeks retroactively to enforce a “new rule” of substantive constitutional law under the familiar doctrine of Teague v. Lane.On the surface, Montgomery held only that state courts are required to employ Teague’s retroactivity framework when and if they adjudicate habeas petitions relying on new substantive rules of federal law. But, in reaching that conclusion, the Court clarified that Teague’s holding that new substantive rules of federal law are retroactively applicable on collateral rev...
Wainwright v. Sykes: The Lower Federal Courts Respond
1979
Fay held that insofar as the state prisoner there involved had been confronted with the "grisly choice" of accepting a life sentence or taking an appeal which carried the risk of a death sentence, he had not "deliberately by-passed" state procedures by failing to take a direct appeal. Id. at 439-40. 11. 411 U.S. 233 (1973). 12. The Court distinguished Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969), in which the "deliberate by-pass" standard was applied to a federal prisoner who raised a fourth amendment claim at trial but not on appeal, on the ground that the Kaufman Court had no July 19791 THE HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL Rather, the Court held that Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which bars litigation of claims not raised before trial based on defects in the institution of criminal proceedings, absent "cause shown" for failing to assert those claims, applied on collateral review as well as on direct appeal. To hold otherwise, the Court concluded, would be to "perversely negate" the legitimate federal interests underlying Rule 12, which the Court identified as, first, having such claims resolved before trial when a defect can easily be cured by obtaining a new indictment, and, second, discouraging lawyers from delaying the litigation of constitutional claims for tactical reasons.' 3 Three years later, the Court in Francis v. Henderson' 4 applied the Davis rule in the case of a state prisoner had not complied with a state procedural rule requiring that claims of grand jury discrimination be raised before trial. "If, as Davis held, the federal courts must give effect to [the] important and legitimate concerns [underlying Rule 121 in § 2255 proceedings," the Court reasoned, "surely considerations of comity and federalism require that they give no less effect to the same clear interests when asked to overturn state criminal convictions."' 5 Accordingly, although without explaining why the waiver standard in Fay was not controlling, the Court in Francis held that the state prisoner was foreclosed from federal habeas review, for he had failed to present "not only a showing of 'cause' for [his] failure to challenge the composition of the grand jury before trial, but also a showing of actual prejudice."' 16 This two-part waiver standard, under which a petitioner must show both cause and actual prejudice to overcome a procedural deoccasion to consider the effect of a failure to raise a fourth amentment claim at trial. 411 U.S. at 240 n. 7; see notes 41-48 & accompanying text infra.
2021
On the final day of the 1982 Term, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Michigan v. Long.' Although primarily a fourth amendment decision, 2 Long's true significance lies in its establishment of a new test for determining when a state decision rests on independent and adequate state grounds, thus precluding federal review. The Court held that when such a decision either appears to rest on or be "interwoven" with federal law, and when the independence or adequacy of a state ground is not clear from the opinion, the Court will presume that the federal grounds were primarily relied upon. 3 This new test undoubtedly will increase the number of prosecution appeals from state court criminal decisions that the Supreme Court will review. Consequently, it is important to ask why this Court, which has continually bemoaned its swollen docket, 4 would voluntarily seek to expand the number of cases available for its review. The most intriguing portion of the Long case was the dissent filed by Justice Stevens.? Repeating a theme he had sounded in previous opin
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 1990
Id. at 3. The relevant exchange between the court and counsels took place as follows: Mr. Motta [Counsel for the defendant]: As the Court is aware State exercised 10 peremptory challenges and each challenge excused a black person. I feel that my client is entitled to a jury of his peers, your Honor. I feel that he is being denied this. I would ask the Court for a mistrial. Mr. Angarola [Prosecutor]: We exercised more than 10 challenges. In fact we exercised 11 challenges and didn't just excuse black individuals. Counsel is incorrect when he stats [sic] that. In fact, your Honor, one of the challenges, peremptory challenges exercised was against a white woman. In addition, your Honor, numerous individuals that were excused were of very young years. There was an attempt, your Honor, to have
The Good, the Bad, and the Burger Court: Victims' Rights and a New Model of Criminal Review
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 1984
On the final day of the 1982 Term, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Michigan v. Long.' Although primarily a fourth amendment decision, 2 Long's true significance lies in its establishment of a new test for determining when a state decision rests on independent and adequate state grounds, thus precluding federal review. The Court held that when such a decision either appears to rest on or be "interwoven" with federal law, and when the independence or adequacy of a state ground is not clear from the opinion, the Court will presume that the federal grounds were primarily relied upon. 3 This new test undoubtedly will increase the number of prosecution appeals from state court criminal decisions that the Supreme Court will review. Consequently, it is important to ask why this Court, which has continually bemoaned its swollen docket, 4 would voluntarily seek to expand the number of cases available for its review. The most intriguing portion of the Long case was the dissent filed by Justice Stevens.? Repeating a theme he had sounded in previous opin