Title: Struggling for Federal Judicial Review of Successive Claims of Innocence: A Study of How Federal Courts Wrestled with the AEDPA to Provide Individuals Convicted of Non-existent Crimes with Habeas Corpus Review
Abstract: In 1996, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) dramatically changed law governing federal habeas review in United States. The changes brought about by AEDPA include greater restrictions on successive habeas or collateral review, and one of clear effects of these changes is much greater restriction on habeas or collateral review of prisoner claims, including meritorious claims and claims of actual innocence. This article examines one aspect of AEDPA's limitations on successive review of claims brought under 28 U.S.C. - 2255, how AEDPA may preclude or greatly limit an innocent prisoner's claim for collateral or habeas relief, and how federal courts have turned to savings clause of - 2255 to allow habeas hearings for certain individuals serving prison time for non-criminal conduct. Specifically, this article considers AEDPA's obstacles to federal prisoners convicted of conduct that Supreme Court in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), declared non-criminal. Three years later, Court held decision in Bailey applied retroactively. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998). One of results of these Supreme Court decisions is that certain federal prisoners were now serving prison time for non-criminal conduct. To obtain relief from their prison sentences, these federal prisoners often had to seek collateral review of their conviction and sentence, and a number of these prisoners were required to file a successive - 2255 motion to obtain such Unfortunately, as article points out, the current federal habeas corpus system is not unlike a maze filled with wrong turns, fun house mirrors, and dead ends that one must try to navigate before attaining evermore elusive goal of meaningful federal habeas review. In considering these issues and course prisoner must traverse to obtain review of his Bailey claim, article explores history and methods of habeas and collateral review available to federal prisoners and discusses difference between using 28 U.S.C. - 2241 and 28 U.S.C. - 2255 to pursue collateral challenges to federal convictions. Included in this discussion is role of savings clause of - 2255, which allows - 2241 review where remedy under - 2255 is found inadequate or ineffective to test legality of [the] detention. The article then studies effect of AEDPA on federal collateral and habeas review, particularly second or successive review and savings clause of - 2255. The article closely considers successive collateral review of Bailey claims, examines way in which AEDPA obstructs successive review of these claims of actual innocence, and explores federal court's response to an unjust application of AEDPA. The broader implications and problems created by AEDPA and role of federal court in interpreting these provisions are examined in context of those federal prisoners who have potentially meritorious Bailey claims, but who are nonetheless unable to obtain meaningful review of their claims.
Publication Year: 2005
Publication Date: 2005-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot