Title: Something’s Got to Give: The Anomaly and Doctrinal Tension in the Wake of Pinholster and Martinez
Abstract: Modern criminal procedure reflects a variety of competing forces. The traditional imperative to afford certain rights to persons accused of crimes is counterbalanced by the need to curb costs, respect decided rulings, and provide finality to criminal proceedings. Federal habeas relief lies at the crux of these competing goals. Part II of this Comment introduces the writ of habeas corpus. Part III discusses the current crime problem in America. Part III also introduces the current statutory guidelines for federal habeas review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Part IV explains the right to effective assistance of counsel and introduces two recent Supreme Court cases in the context of ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims on federal habeas review. In _Cullen v. Pinholster_, the Supreme Court limited review of state-court judgments “adjudicated on the merits” to the record that was before the state court, despite indications of ineffective assistance of counsel. In _Martinez v. Ryan_, the Court determined that prisoners who suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel at both trial and later proceedings are permitted to bring new evidence and receive de novo review of the defaulted claim. These two cases profoundly impact the ability of prisoners to obtain relief through federal petitions for writs of habeas corpus. The distinction between _Martinez_ and _Pinholster_ prisoners sounds in the distinction between procedural default and substantive denial.
This distinction breaks down, however, in the context of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. The holdings in _Pinholster_ and _Martinez_ were reasonable for the facts of the respective cases, but have created confusion and anomalous treatment for prisoners whose procedural posture lies between the two cases. Part V discusses the anomaly created by these two opinions and how courts have dealt with cases that fit in the margin between _Pinholster_ and _Martinez_. Part VI discusses the broader tension between expanding and restricting availability of habeas relief as has been evidenced by recent Supreme Court opinions in the federal habeas review context. Part VII looks at the policy purposes driving the different outcomes in _Pinholster_ and _Martinez_. Part VIII argues that the disparate treatment caused by the _Martinez-Pinholster_ tension must be resolved.
Publication Year: 2015
Publication Date: 2015-04-19
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot