NCJ Number
138237
Journal
Loyola University of Los Angeles Law Review Volume: 23 Issue: 1 Dated: (November 1989) Pages: 193-212
Date Published
1989
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This analysis of Federal habeas corpus review in cases involving capital punishment concludes that the legal doctrine established in the 1977 United States Supreme Court decision in Wainright v. Sykes has failed to meet its purported goals and has introduced a disturbing new layer of arbitrariness into a system that is already producing inconsistent results.
Abstract
The Sykes decision used the doctrine of adequate and independent State grounds to restrict Federal habeas review of a constitutional claim where a State court had defaulted the claim on a procedural ground. As shown by its application in Smith v. Murray and Dugger v. Adams, this approach means that executions turn on whether the defendant was unlucky enough to have an attorney who failed to make the appropriate objection at the appropriate time. Thus, it has introduced a new layer of arbitrariness into the system. One way to eliminate this problem would be to make an exception for capital cases, in keeping with the Court's view that death is a different kind of penalty that requires heightened regard for consistency and reliability. Another way would be to rework the Sykes approach along the lines suggested by Justice Stevens' dissent in Smith v. Murray. This would make relief from a death sentence available when a constitutional violation affects the accuracy of the sentencing determination, whatever the procedural posture of the claim. Footnotes