Finality, Habeas, Innocence, and the Death Penalty: Can Justice Be Done?

By Roko, Ellyde | Washington Law Review, February 2010 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Finality, Habeas, Innocence, and the Death Penalty: Can Justice Be Done?


Roko, Ellyde, Washington Law Review


Abstract: In 1995, Judge Betty Binns Fletcher posed a question: In the context of the death penalty, can justice be done? She did not answer the question at the time. However, an examination of the procedural hurdles now facing condemned inmates seeking review of claims of constitutional violations suggests the answer is no. Too often courts, including the Supreme Court, have favored finality over fairness, elevating strict adherence to procedural rules over the responsibility to make sure justice is done. Nowhere is the problem clearer than in the arena of actual innocence, where the failure to consider a condemned inmate's claim on the merits could lead to the execution of an innocent person.

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's 2009 response to a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus in In re Davis1 shows that courts have gone too far. Rather than merely weeding out frivolous claims or showing deference to reasoned state court decisions, federal courts have allowed arcane procedural rules to prevent even meritorious claims from being heard. The Supreme Court's rare intervention should encourage courts to interpret procedural rules less stringently in an effort to make sure justice is done.

INTRODUCTION

In the August 2009 case of In re Davis,2 the Supreme Court of the United States took the unusual step of directing a district court in Georgia to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the possible innocence of a death row inmate.3 After seeking relief from the Georgia Supreme Court4 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit5 without success, the inmate petitioned the Supreme Court for an original writ of habeas corpus.6 The Court had not granted such a writ in nearly fifty years.7 Surprisingly, the Court directed the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim.8 As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a concurring opinion, "The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing."9

The procedural rarity of the case, however, quickly fell under the shadow of Justice Antonin Scalia' s proclamation in a dissent. "This Court," Justice Scalia wrote,

has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is "actually" innocent. Quite the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged "actual innocence" is constitutionally cognizable.10

The Supreme Court's dramatic action in Davis highlights the failures of the existing system of appellate and habeas review. Davis, unable to achieve relief through the usual state and federal channels, had to rely on an unlikely action of the Supreme Court to avoid a potentially unconstitutional execution. Given the rarity of such relief, the specter of executing condemned inmates innocent of death penalty crimes looms. Indeed, innocent defendants have been sentenced to death" and evidence suggests some of them have been executed.12 The Davis case highlights a question that most often falls on the shoulders of lower court judges: In the context of the death penalty, can justice be done?

Judge Fletcher posed this question in 1995 while giving the Madison Lecture at New York University School of Law.13 In her lecture, Judge Fletcher highlighted the responsibility of federal district and appellate judges in ensuring justice for defendants sentenced to death: "While some may view the courts as obstructions when appeals drag on for years, the federal courts are surely not doing their duty if they fail to protect the constitutional rights of capital defendants and if they tolerate execution of innocent people."14

Judge Fletcher and her fellow judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shouldered that responsibility under intense public scrutiny in 1992.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Finality, Habeas, Innocence, and the Death Penalty: Can Justice Be Done?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?