only stealing video tapes; however, convicted of enough crimes to get 3 rd strike. Case fell between two S.Ct. precedents: (a) Invalidated life sentenced w/o parole; and (b) Validated life sentence w/ possibility of parole. State courts interpretation of gross disproportionality principle not unreasonable. D) Yarborough Leeway granted when applying general standards. State courts found no error in admitting a confession on the basis that it was not in custody on Miranda terms. S.Ct. ruled that applying a general standard to a specific case involves subjectivity. The more general the rule, the more leeway granted. iii) Clearly Established Fed Law HC claim is not eliminated from review unless one can identify a S.Ct. case that specifically establishes the law governing the claim. A) Codified Teague Rule Dictated by precedent when the conviction is final (meaning direct appeals are over). HC petitioner does not receive the benefit of the recognition of a new rule of constl law after the petitioners conviction became final. B) What is a New Rule? Anything not dictated already by precedent. C) Rule Rationale (a) We need to give state courts a chance to correct themselves; (b) Cannot predict future law/cant be unreasonable if something didnt exist at the time; (c) Anti-Retroactivity provisions; (d) Avoiding flood of HC petitions iv) As Determined by S.Ct. S.Ct. decision in play c) Parity Debate Empirical v. Sociological; Are state courts as competent as fed courts? Are state courts as likely to uphold fed rights or any right in particular? Widely believed that fed judges are of a higher quality than state judges. Three traits that distinguish fed judges: (1) Fed judgeships are generally more prestigious, which tends to attract more technically competent lawyers; (2) Less insulated from majoritarian pressure (life tenure); (3) Participation in a proud tradition of protecting constl rights i) Republican Party of MN Prohibiting candidates for judicial office from announcing their political views on current issues violates the 1 st Amend. This was the beginning of politicized state judge elections/special interest groups making their own questionnaires to judges. ii) Parity as a Constitutional Concept Is the Constitution indifferent as to where adjudication occurs? Madisonian compromise = since congress need not create any fed courts, state courts must enjoy parity. Does AIII compel jx in inferior fed courts? Does this obligation extend to all 9 fed power categories? iii) Parity as Legislative Policy Congress can simply consider fed courts to be better than state courts when allocating jx.
PROCEDURAL DEFAULT
a) General Rule If prisoner failed to raise claim in state court in accordance w/ state procedures, HC claim is barred/procedurally defaulted; i.e., does not get HC review per 2254 claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings ( Daniels). b) HC Procedural Hurdles/Requirements Plaintiff must pass these before HC suit is heard i) Exhaustion Plaintiff must use up all available state remedies/routes. If P doesnt raise a claim, procedural due process shuts it out. However, P may get out of jail before the appeal is over. Exhaustion can moot any HC petition! ii) In Custody P must be careful not to moot own case by getting out of custody (on behalf of a person in custody). Cannot apply for HC writ if P is out of jail/done with parole! iii) Time Limit P has one year to assert HC petition. Tolling happens during state HC proceedings. iv) Successive Petitions Fed court should dismiss claims in successive petitions unless petitioner satisfied the cause/prejudice standard, justifying failure to raise the claims earlier on fed HC c) HC Procedural Exceptions Procedural default excused in two circumstances: i) Cause/Prejudice (a) [Cause] Petitioner had cause for not complying w/ state procedures (something external to prisoner, i.e. interference by state officials (Brady violation); ineffective assistance (at trial/first appeal as of right); abandonment by counsel); (b) [Prejudice] Reasonable probability that result of proceeding different, absent constl violations (focus on proceeding where constl violation occurred) (Wainwright v. Sykes) ii) Gateway Claim Extraordinary case where constl violation probably resulted in conviction of person who was actually innocent. A) Actual Innocence Test: More likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted (very high standard) B) House v. Bell Test satisfied b/c petitioner found new DNA evidence that contradicted evidence at trial and helped support he inference that another suspect committed the crime. Court did not require that the new evidence conclusively exonerate the prisoner, only that it tip the balance of conflicting evidence toward making it more likely than not that no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt. c) Application of Teague (Non-Retroactivity Provisions) on State Courts i) Broader Retroactivity Standards When determining whether S.Ct. decisions on constl rules of criminal procedure apply retroactively, state courts are free to give whatever effect they want to S.Ct. decisions in deciding state HC actions. S.Ct. precedent applies only to fed HC petitions and has no bearing on state HC proceedings.
A) Danforth After Danforths conviction became final (exhausted appeals), S.Ct. decided Crawford which reshaped rights to confront hearsay evidence. Danforth files HC petition based on Crawford. MN SC held that it could not give retroactive effect to new constl ruling. New rule = not a clearly established fed law.
his wife. While in prison, Heck filed pro se suit against Humphrey (DMGs, not injunctive relief/release from custody). First HC petition denied because state remedies were not exhausted; Second just denied. B) Preiser Fed HC challenges are the exclusive remedy for state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of their confinement. However, this is only if prisoner is challenging speed or validity of confinement. Here, prisoner sought DMGs, which can be brought under s.1983 w/out first exhausting state remedies.