Supreme Court Ruling Makes Overturning Convictions For Representation Harder

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast.

Related Post Roulette

5 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    Apparently these SCOTUS Justices don’t even like enumerated rights. The “Reasonable and Prudent Person” would assume the right to a fair trial includes competent representation and defense . . . and i note the “We don’t interfere in state court decisions and proceedings” language is definitely a nod to the forthcoming Roe decisions . . . .Report

  2. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Thomas’ opinion says that Arizona’s federal district court erred in considering new evidence presented by the inmates

    If new evidence ain’t worth considering, what in the hell would be?

    That’s bullshit. Complete and total bullshit.Report

    • PD Shaw in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      A convict is supposed to raise issues in the state court system before taking it to federal court. That requirement originates from a Clinton era statute that limited habeas corpus petitions at a point in time when the federal courts were getting inundated with repeat filings.

      Here, the prisoner appealed his conviction through the state court system and his post-conviction attorney did not raise an ineffectiveness of trial counsel claim. The SCOTUS says that the statute prevents the federal court system from reviewing new evidence on the issue. The dissent says there is a judge-made exception when ineffective counsel is given as an excuse. The majority (which includes justices that helped make the exception) say that the exception isn’t that broad.Report

  3. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Elections have consequences.Report

  4. cam
    Ignored
    says:

    so the ‘pro-life’ justices decided that the death penalty is okay for (in at least one case very probably innocent people) because procedure is more important than actual justice…Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.