Case:
The Supreme Court today issued opinions in two cases involving procedures for habeas corpus, specifically in the context of individuals who are challenging their state-court convictions or capital sentences. Habeas allows these individuals to allege that their convictions are invalid due to constitutional defects in the trials. Winning such a claim is very, very difficult. The legal doctrine is very restrictive, thanks to both Congress, which passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) in 1996, and to years of highly restrictive Supreme Court precedent. Today, however, both cases inched open doors for habeas petitioners.
Normally, a habeas petitioner must raise all of his claims in state court before he comes to federal court. Failure to do so generally is considered a “procedural default,” and precludes the federal courts from considering the claims. Today, however, in Trevino v. Thaler, the Court held that where “the structure and design” of a state’s system, “in actual practice” make it virtually impossible for certain types of claims to be raised, the procedural default may be forgiven and the federal court can hear them. The case arose in Texas, and its holding will apply to many defendants in that state and possibly in others as well. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion for a 5-justice majority.
The second case, McQuiggin v. Perkins, raises the question of whether failure to bring a claim within AEDPA’s statute of limitations can be forgiven in a situation where the petitioner is presenting substantial evidence of actual innocence. Although the Court did not appear to believe that the particular habeas petitioner in this case was going to benefit from its ruling, it held that substantial enough evidence of actual innocence can be sufficient to allow some petitioners’ claims to be considered. This opinion, too, was 5-4, with Justice Ginsburg writing for the Court.