We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
FEDERAL REVIEW OF STATE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS: A STRUCTURAL APPROACH TO ADEQUACY DOCTRINE.
- Authors
Primus, Eve Brensike
- Abstract
Modern state postconviction review systems feature procedural labyrinths so complicated and confusing that indigent defendants have no realistic prospect of complying with the rules. When defendants predictably fail to navigate these mazes, state and federal courts deem their claims procedurally defaulted and refuse to consider those claims on their merits. As a result, systemic violations of criminal procedure rights—like the right to effective counsel—persist without judicial correction. But the law contains a tool that, if properly adapted, could bring these systemic problems to the attention of federal courts: procedural adequacy. Procedural adequacy doctrine gives federal courts the power to ignore procedural defaults and declare state procedural rules inadequate when those rules unduly burden defendants’ abilities to assert violations of their federal rights. And unlike the more commonly invoked cause and prejudice doctrine, which excuses default on the theory that a defendant’s unusual circumstances justify an exception to the rules, procedural adequacy doctrine allows courts to question the legitimacy of the state procedural regimes themselves. Procedural adequacy doctrine can therefore catalyze reform in a way that cause and prejudice cannot. For procedural adequacy litigation to catalyze reform, however, it must be adapted to modern circumstances in one crucial respect. Historically, procedural adequacy doctrine focused on cases involving the deliberate manipulation of individual rules. Today, what is needed is a structural approach to adequacy, one that would consider how the interaction of multiple procedural rules unfairly burdens federal rights. Such a structural approach to adequacy is consistent with the doctrine’s original purposes and is the most sensible way to apply procedural adequacy under current conditions. Litigants should accordingly deploy a structural approach to procedural adequacy doctrine and use it to stop states from burying systemic constitutional violations in complicated procedural labyrinths.
- Subjects
UNITED States; POSTCONVICTION remedies; CRIMINAL convictions; CRIMINAL procedure; FEDERAL courts; JUDICIAL power; LEGAL status of criminal defendants; CONSTITUTIONAL law; RIGHT to counsel; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law); U.S. states; LAW
- Publication
Michigan Law Review, 2017, Vol 116, Issue 1, p75
- ISSN
0026-2234
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.36644/mlr.116.1.federal