The Judiciary Committee hearing on Judge Downey’s nomination, which raised some hackles, was postponed to sometime before September 17 about 70 minutes into the proceeding so as to allow the committee members some time to digest new information that was brought to their attention.
Specifically, this transcript [pdf], in which the following statement is uttered:
“Only people who are legally here in the United States, in my opi—-are entitled to the rights and privledges that we extend to U.S. citizens. Why should a person become a U.S. citizen if they can otherwise enjoy the same rights as the rest of us especially after 9/11?”
He also said he would not hear a case in which one of the parties said they were “not legal”.
Other quirks:
At one point during the hearing Downey referred to himself in the third person like he did in the May 24, 2002 transcript and Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, asked him to refrain from making third party references to himself calling it “Seinfeldesque.”
Read the full report at CT News Junkie
Posted by Gideon in habeas
A groundbreaking study was released today, examining the impact of AEDPA on Federal Habeas Corpus petitions. The executive summary is here and the full report is here [both are .pdf files]. From the press release:
Before the 1996 law, known as the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act or “AEDPA,” federal courts granted a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner in about one of every 100 non-capital cases filed. A writ of habeas corpus is a mandate from a court to a prison official ordering that an inmate be be released from custody, re-sentenced, or retried. King’s research found that after the new law was enacted, the grant rate was closer to one in every 300 cases.
“More than one in every five of these cases was dismissed because the prisoner missed the new filing deadline,” said King.
The study also found a federal court was much more likely to overturn the conviction or sentence of an inmate on death row compared to other prisoners. King found that in the capital cases that had reached conclusion in federal court by the study’s end, one of every eight death sentences was invalidated.
Congress hoped to speed up federal habeas review when it amended the habeas law in 1996, but this new research found that habeas cases now take longer to finish. King said one of every four cases filed by death row inmates between 2000 and 2002 had not been resolved by the end of November 2006.
The full report is long and I hope to get through it in the next few days, but for now I’ll rely on
CDW’s encapsulation of the main points:
- “Cases with time-barred claims took 47% to 112% more days to finish than cases not time-barred, once other factors were taken into account.”
- “Each capital habeas filing appears to be taking at least twice as long to finish, on average, than prior to AEDPA. The Federal Judicial Center study prior to AEDPA found that the average disposition time for a capital habeas case involving a first petition was 15 months, significantly shorter than the average disposition times that we found in this study. We found averages of 29 months for the disposition of terminated capital cases, 30.4 months for non-transferred first petitions, and 37.3 months so far for all cases including those still pending. It is not known whether AEDPA has had any effect on total processing time for all habeas challenges filed by a given death row inmate. No information about processing time per prisoner (as opposed to per filing) is presently is available for comparison before or after AEDPA.”
- “Neither the presence of an evidentiary hearing or discovery significantly affected either processing time or likelihood of termination, once other factors were taken into account.”
- “Cases with a defaulted claim took longer than cases without such a ruling.”
- “Terminated capital cases in which the court granted the writ on any claim took 54% to 74% more days to complete, a finding consistent with pre-AEDPA findings that it takes a reviewing court longer to disturb than to affirm a capital conviction or sentence.”
- “The presence of an evidentiary hearing in federal court was associated with a 21 to 32 percentage point increase in the likelihood of relief, after controlling for other factors. Also associated with an increased likelihood of relief (9 to 12 percentage points) was an order authorizing a deposition or mental or physical examination.”
- “Of nine categories of claims examined, three were associated with a greater likelihood of relief in capital cases. A claim alleging a violation of Roper, Atkins, or Ring raised the likelihood of relief by about 10 percentage points. The presence of a claim of ineffective counsel at sentencing raised the likelihood of relief by about 8 percentage points. A claim raising new evidence of innocence of guilt raised the likelihood of a grant by 10 to 12 percentage points. In none of the 33 cases receiving relief did the federal court grant the writ based on a claim of factual innocence itself. Instead, the presence of an innocence claim made a grant of relief on a different claim more likely”
- Consistent with pre-AEDPA research, petitioners raising fewer claims were more likely to receive relief. Additional claims increased processing time but not the odds of relief. Lengthier periods for the preparation of the petition did not raise a petitioner’s chances either. Because some of the districts with the longest preparation times also had the fewest cases terminated, these findings may change once pending cases are resolved.
- The study suggests that fewer death row inmates are receiving relief in federal district court after AEDPA. About one in eight or 12.4% of 267 terminated capital cases that filed in 2000, 2001, and 2002 received relief. This is much lower than the 40% grant rate reported by Fagan et al. for the much older capital cases that had already made it through both the federal district and appellate courts by 1995
As Karl correctly points out, the study brings to light important points regarding the effectiveness of certain types of claims. This is very important not only for Federal practitioners, but also those who practice in State court with an eye to subsequent Federal petitions. Stay tuned to CDW for further updates.
« Hide It
Posted by Gideon in judges
We all know the story of the Texas lawyer who fell asleep during a capital trial, but now Scott points to one in New York. Unfortunately, as was the case with the Texas appeal, the court in NY also found that it was not ineffective, because, in essence, the lawyer did some “lawyering”.
Here’s another *ahem* reason the petition was denied: the judge that heard the petition for a new trial was the same judge that presided over the trial itself.
Scott does a good job, as usual, of pointing out how stupid this decision is, but misses one important question: What was the same judge doing hearing the petition for a new trial? If the defendant had filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the judge should have recused herself. Precisely for the reason that no judge will admit that there was a sleeping lawyer in the courtroom and they did not catch it, should this judge have not been presiding over this hearing.
I don’t know much about the NY post-conviction process, so maybe someone can clue me in. Was this a petition for writ of habeas corpus? If not, is that available to this defendant?
Either way, judges do the darnest things.
recent comments