![handle is hein.journals/hybrid19 and id is 1 raw text is:
HABEAS CORPUS FOR THE INNOCENT
STEPHANIE ROBERTS HARTUNG*
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................2
I.Evolution of Federal Habeas Corpus Review Since AEDPA .............................................4
A. The Passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [AEDPA].................4
B. Criticisms of AEDPA ...........................................................6
1. Statute of Limitations .......................................................7
2. Undue Deference to State Court Decisions ..............9......... ..............9
3. Inherently Contradictory Provisions ........................................... 10
4. Limits on Second or Successive Petitions... ......................... ..............11
5. High Standard of Proof to Establish Innocence ....................................... 12
C. Judicial Treatment of AEDPA ....................................... ........... 13
1. Blume Study .............................................................. 14
2. Marceau Study ............................................................ 15
D. The Debate Regarding the Role of Federal Habeas Review in Modem Jurisprudence..............16
1. Argument for Limiting Federal Habeas Review of State Convictions ..... .............16
2. Argument for Expanding Federal Habeas Review of State Convictions ................17
3. The Primacy of Innocence in the Federal Habeas Debate........................... 18
II. The Impact of the Innocence Movement: How the Exoneration Data Shifts the Balance in the
Federal Habeas Policy Debate ....................................................... 18
A. The Innocence Movement: An Overview ............................................ 20
B. Pre-trial Reforms in Criminal Justice System ............................................21
1. Eyewitness Identification. ....................................... ...........22
2. Police Interrogation Procedures .................................................... 22
3. Unreliable Forensic Evidence.................................................23
C. Recalibrating the Policy Equation: Finality vs. Fairness in the Age of Innocence...................24
III. Pre-trial Innocence Tracks: The Proposal and the Critique.....................................25
A. The Pretrial Innocence Track Proposal...........................................25
B. Criticism of Pretrial Innocence Tracks.............................................26
IV. The Case for a Federal Post-Conviction Innocence Track................... .................28
A. Historical Support for a Federal Post-Conviction Innocence Track....... ..........29
1. Friendly Article........................................................... 29
2. Hoffmann & Stuntz Article: The Original Innocence Track Proposal ................30
B. The Inability of State Post-Conviction Procedures to Adequately Address Actual
*Professor of Legal Writing, Suffolk University Law School; J.D., Boston College Law School; B.A. Northwestern
University. My thanks to Stanley Fisher and Rosa Kim for their feedback and support, to Brandon Garrett for his insightful
comments, and to Diane D'Angelo, for her extensive research assistance. This Article is dedicated to the memory of
Andrea Auer, my dear friend, who was a tireless advocate for justice until the day she died.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/hybrid19&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most