Supreme court gives inmates more leeway to challenge convictions

[alp227]

Source: Washington Post

A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a prisoner who presents credible evidence of his innocence can overcome a procedural barrier that he waited too long to go to court.

Federal law dictates that a state prisoner has one year from the time he is convicted to petition federal courts to say his conviction violated his constitutional rights — for instance, that he was deprived of effective counsel.

But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined with the court’s liberal wing in ruling 5 to 4 that barring someone who has a credible claim of innocence from filing a habeas petition would be a miscarriage of justice.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote for the majority, stressed that such instances would be rare. “The miscarriage of justice exception, we underscore, applies to a severely confined category: cases in which new evidence shows it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted” the petitioner, she wrote.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-gives-inmates-more-leeway-to-challenge-convictions/2013/05/28/f144e6a0-c7aa-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_singlePage.html

[happyslug]

1. Here is the Actual Opinion,

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-126_lkgn.pdf

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III.


But also see its "Companion case" decided by the same Judges, but this time the opinion was written by Breyer:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-10189_6k47.pdf

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

For the reasons just stated, we believe that the Texas procedural system—as a matter of its structure, design, and operation—does not offer most defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal....

Thus, for present purposes, a distinction between (1) a State that denies permission to raise the claim on direct appeal and (2) a State that in theory grants permission but, as a matter of procedural design and systemic operation, denies a meaningful opportunity to do so is a distinction without a difference. In saying this, we do not (any more than we did in Martinez) seek to encourage States to tailor direct appeals so that they provide a fuller opportunity to raise ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims. That is a matter for the States to decide. And, as we have said, there are often good reasons for hearing the claim initially during collateral proceedings......

[rpannier]

6. The biggest non-surprise being

SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

Doesn't Thomas' webpage just link you directly to Scalia's. If it doesn't it should, just to save time

All of Thomas' opinions should merely say, "What Scalia said." It'd save on paper

[MotherPetrie]

2. Good.

[tblue]

3. 'Waited to long'?

How could anyone put a time limit on probing your innocence?

Good for those Justices. My gosh, how could the others dissent? Aren't they high and mighty?

[Mr. X]

5. Mostly

It's to prevent the guilty ones from flooding the system with false claims.

[elleng]

4. Pleased to see this.

Posted earlier.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101664750

[JDPriestly]

7. Wonderful! Why should a person serve prison-time for a crime he did not commit.

[rpannier]

8. Because the for profit prison industry needs prisoners