Post by CCADP on Aug 26, 2005 7:42:30 GMT -5
From the Saint Petersburg times
Unfair trial? Too bad
The Streamlined Procedures Act seeks to keep the federal courts from examining the fairness of state trials - a move even state jurists oppose.
A Times Editorial
Published August 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With more than 40 death row inmates in the last six years having been found innocent and released from prison, you would think Congress would focus any new legislation on strengthening access to the courts so prisoners are not wrongly put to death. But you would be wrong. When Congress returns from its summer recess, it is expected to consider a bill designed to close the federal courthouse doors to prisoner appeals and speed death row inmates to their final end.
The misnamed Streamlined Procedures Act is about gutting procedures, not streamlining them. Two versions of the measure would go a long way toward eliminating federal habeas corpus review of state convictions. Prisoners use habeas corpus to claim that their trial or sentence was constitutionally faulty or that there is new evidence of actual innocence.
Those pushing the changes say the federal courts unduly inject themselves into death penalty cases where the state procedures have been fully and fairly followed. In fact, the federal courts have been a vital check on state trials. When state appeals courts disregard trial errors, such as incompetent defense lawyers, prosecutors who have engaged in misconduct or juries that have been racially rigged, the federal courts have been there to redress the wrong. Allowing an unfair process to stand can have life and death consequences for someone wrongly accused.
The two bills - the House version is only slightly more draconian than Senate's - would create virtually insurmountable procedural hurdles to all federal habeas review, whether the case involves a death row inmate or not. If an inmate has a legitimate claim but his attorney made some procedural error, the federal courts would be essentially barred from hearing it. While there is an innocence exception, it is so narrowly drawn that many of the innocent people who have recently left death row would not have been able to meet the proposed standard.
The bills contain a host of other barriers to keep the federal courts from examining the fairness of state trials. The measures reek of hostility toward the federal judiciary and the constitutional rights they uphold.
Some of the most vocal opposition to the measures is coming from conservative legal circles. The president of the Rutherford Institute, for example, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the proposal "would likely result in the execution of citizens who have been wrongly convicted." More than 50 former prosecutors have declared their opposition.
A resolution raising serious objections to the measure and calling for additional study recently passed the Conference of Chief Justices by an overwhelming vote. These are the very state jurists whose relative autonomy and power would be increased by cutting off federal court review. They don't want this congressional favor. Congress should listen.
[Last modified August 26, 2005, 01:36:21]
Unfair trial? Too bad
The Streamlined Procedures Act seeks to keep the federal courts from examining the fairness of state trials - a move even state jurists oppose.
A Times Editorial
Published August 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With more than 40 death row inmates in the last six years having been found innocent and released from prison, you would think Congress would focus any new legislation on strengthening access to the courts so prisoners are not wrongly put to death. But you would be wrong. When Congress returns from its summer recess, it is expected to consider a bill designed to close the federal courthouse doors to prisoner appeals and speed death row inmates to their final end.
The misnamed Streamlined Procedures Act is about gutting procedures, not streamlining them. Two versions of the measure would go a long way toward eliminating federal habeas corpus review of state convictions. Prisoners use habeas corpus to claim that their trial or sentence was constitutionally faulty or that there is new evidence of actual innocence.
Those pushing the changes say the federal courts unduly inject themselves into death penalty cases where the state procedures have been fully and fairly followed. In fact, the federal courts have been a vital check on state trials. When state appeals courts disregard trial errors, such as incompetent defense lawyers, prosecutors who have engaged in misconduct or juries that have been racially rigged, the federal courts have been there to redress the wrong. Allowing an unfair process to stand can have life and death consequences for someone wrongly accused.
The two bills - the House version is only slightly more draconian than Senate's - would create virtually insurmountable procedural hurdles to all federal habeas review, whether the case involves a death row inmate or not. If an inmate has a legitimate claim but his attorney made some procedural error, the federal courts would be essentially barred from hearing it. While there is an innocence exception, it is so narrowly drawn that many of the innocent people who have recently left death row would not have been able to meet the proposed standard.
The bills contain a host of other barriers to keep the federal courts from examining the fairness of state trials. The measures reek of hostility toward the federal judiciary and the constitutional rights they uphold.
Some of the most vocal opposition to the measures is coming from conservative legal circles. The president of the Rutherford Institute, for example, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the proposal "would likely result in the execution of citizens who have been wrongly convicted." More than 50 former prosecutors have declared their opposition.
A resolution raising serious objections to the measure and calling for additional study recently passed the Conference of Chief Justices by an overwhelming vote. These are the very state jurists whose relative autonomy and power would be increased by cutting off federal court review. They don't want this congressional favor. Congress should listen.
[Last modified August 26, 2005, 01:36:21]