Habeas Corpus - An Erosion of Law and Order?

Habeas Corpus - An Erosion of Law and Order? Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation - Article 6 HABEAS CORPUS-AN EROSION OF LAW AND ORDER?* T HE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES REQUIREMENT, presently codified in Section 2254 of the Judicial. Code,' has traditionally' served as a condition precedent to the issuance, of 'afederal writ of habeas corpus. However, recent fedeial and United States .Supreme Court decisions have initiated major modifications ih the interpretation aid application of this rule which have made it increasingly evident that there are-certain situations in.which federal habeas corpus relief can be sought even though effectiv& state remedies are available. 'These modifications are indicative of a'recent' trend in the federal judiciarq to re-define the federal habeas corpus statutes 2 so as to facilitate the means by which state prisoners with valid constitutional claims may avail themselves of the federal remedy. Since its inception in the early animated 1960's, this liberalizing trend has generated piofus&6 and criticism from local, state, and federal authorities. "It would, therefore, be. worthwhile 'to investigate the essential objections of these critics before attempting to evaluate the propriety 'of the trend and the likelihood of its continuance and acceleration: *This paper was prepared by the St. Thomas More' Institute for Legal Reseaich. 1 28 U.S.C.'§ 2254 ("1964), as amended; (Supp.. II, 1965-66). The applicable subsectio(bn)s "'Aofnseaptpiolnicia2ti2o5n4 froerada: writ .. of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in'custody pursuant to the judgment of a State'court shall' not be granted unless"if appears that the applicant has exhausted 'the remedies available in the-courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ,ineffective to protect.the rights,,of the. prisoner. .(c) An applicant shall not be deemed to, have exhausted the remedie5 .available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, Wf he has 'the right under the -law of the State to raise, by. any available procedure,' the question presented.. . 228 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2255 (1964).. The power to grant the writ is conferred specifically by section 2241, wbile the habeas corpus procedure isregulated by section 2242-2255. Note that sections 2241, 2244 and .2254 have-U.bSe.eCn. amended: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (d) (Supp. 11, 1965-66), amending 28 §2241 (9,64); 28 U.S.Q, §2244 (a), (b), (c) (Supp. II, 1965-66), amending 28 U.S.C. , § 2244 -(,1964); 28,.,.U:S.C., § 2254..,,(a), . (b), (c), (d), (e); (f) (Supp. II, .1965-66), amending 28 U.S.C. §2254 (1964)..r. The Critics -Essential Objections Charges have been raised that the recent attempts to limit the scope of the exhaustion rule represent a federal conspiracy to subvert the habeas corpus remedy into a forum for the automatic retrial and review of state criminal proceedings; it has been imputed that the remedy is being primed to replace the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, a privilege lost to state prisoners in 1916. One critic has even cynically summarized this alleged transfiguration from a concept for collateral attack to a concept for appellate review as a grotesque mutation.5 He warned that unless habeas corpus was returned to the status of a purely collateral remedy, the preservation of an efficient dual system of judicial administration would be endangered; in other words, further interference with state judicial process by the nullification of state judgments must be effectively prevented.4 A similar note has been sounded by District Attorney Evelle J. Younger,, who has demanded the elimination of the "farce" of endless postconviction review and relief, noting that it is imperative to the efficiency of our criminal control systems that there be some point where judgments do actually 3Badger, A Judicial Cul-de-Sac: Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 50 A.B.A.J. 629, 634 (1964) [hereinafter cited as Badger]. 4ld. In leveling this criticism, Badger urged a narrowing of the scope of inquiry to jurisdictionally related defects only, and favored the incorporation of the adequate state grounds rule into federal habeas corpus as the only conceivable means of achieving his proposed goals. 5Younger, Prosecution Problems, 53 A.B.A.J. 695, 702 (1967). become final. To tolerate interminable review of state judgments and repeated post-conviction relief, according to Mr. Younger, is to inject uncertainty into the judicial process; thus, he urges that reasonable restrictions be imposed upon the "Great Writ" itself rather than upon those procedures, e.g., exhaustion, which inherently limit use of the writ. It should be pointed out that such criticism has not emanated solely from state criminal prosecutors, for only recently a Florida stat (...truncated)