tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post3082923483843492688..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Bench slap: SCOTUS says Texas capital habeas process could 'create significant unfairness'Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-84733062682213984642013-06-03T17:28:16.918-05:002013-06-03T17:28:16.918-05:00Our source is usually the New York Times. I've...Our source is usually the New York Times. I've never liked the the way they spin their stories.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-59573025313084970162013-05-31T07:08:17.172-05:002013-05-31T07:08:17.172-05:00Your correction is slightly less wrong than the or...Your correction is slightly less wrong than the original post. It is hard to imagine how this opinion has any impact on how the CCA handles capital litigation (except that litigants will no doubt argue they have a right to effective assistance of state habeas counsel). It will, however, affect how the federal courts deal with habeas review.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-62703906844694247182013-05-30T22:35:21.327-05:002013-05-30T22:35:21.327-05:00As Rob stated, the Supreme Court was correcting th...As Rob stated, the Supreme Court was correcting the Fifth Circuit and not the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Fifth Circuit had held that Martinez v. Ryan did not apply to Texas because an ineffective assistance claim can theoretically be raised on direct appeal following a motion for new trial. The Supreme Court recognized the reality that the narrow time-window for filing a motion was not practical for litigating ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as well as the fact that Texas state appellate courts have expressed a preference that ineffective assistance claims be raised in habeas corpus writ rather than on direct appeal. The Trevino decision was not an express criticism of the Texas capital habeas process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69731759178266006162013-05-30T12:32:52.772-05:002013-05-30T12:32:52.772-05:00Scott, Trevino is actually a slapdown of the Fifth...Scott, Trevino is actually a slapdown of the Fifth Circuit, rather than the CCA. To be sure, the CCA is the court that is indifferent to the (often unbelievably poor) quality of legal representation for condemned prisoners in state post-conviction cases -- but it's the Fifth Circuit that concluded that such terrible lawyering in state court can't provide legal "cause" for a federal court to consider a claim that should have been, but wasn't, presented in state habeas proceedings (by that same incompetent state habeas lawyer). Thus, it's the Fifth Circuit to which the Supreme Court in Trevino is issuing a loving correction.Rob Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02564897837966863396noreply@blogger.com