直接抵押品审查

Payvand Ahdout
{"title":"直接抵押品审查","authors":"Payvand Ahdout","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3487105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Federal courts are vitally important fora in which to remedy constitutional violations that occur during state criminal proceedings. But critics have long lamented the difficultly of obtaining federal review of these violations. The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari to review state criminal convictions, including allegations of constitutional defects, on direct appeal. Likewise, the Court has historically declined to grant certiorari to review habeas claims that originate in state courts. And Congress has circumscribed the ability of all federal courts to grant relief on habeas claims made by state prisoners. The dominant scholarly view, therefore, is that systemic constitutional violations are going unremedied and will continue to go unaddressed absent broadscale change.<br><br>This Essay argues that an unnoticed change in the Supreme Court’s certiorari practice over the last five years has reopened a previously closed path to remedying these violations. The Supreme Court has a long-stated presumption against taking cases that originate in state collateral proceedings, i.e., state proceedings in which a prisoner challenges his or her conviction or sentence, often on federal constitutional grounds, after the conviction has become final. This Essay shows that, although the Court previously hewed to that presumption, things have changed. Beginning in October Term 2015 and continuing to the present, the Court has steadily granted certiorari in these cases, indicating a sub silentio abrogation of its stated presumption. This Essay documents this changed certiorari practice and explains its significance, both for vindication of constitutional criminal procedure rights and for our understanding of the Supreme Court’s central role in shaping those rights.<br>","PeriodicalId":423661,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Procedure (Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Direct Collateral Review\",\"authors\":\"Payvand Ahdout\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3487105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Federal courts are vitally important fora in which to remedy constitutional violations that occur during state criminal proceedings. But critics have long lamented the difficultly of obtaining federal review of these violations. The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari to review state criminal convictions, including allegations of constitutional defects, on direct appeal. Likewise, the Court has historically declined to grant certiorari to review habeas claims that originate in state courts. And Congress has circumscribed the ability of all federal courts to grant relief on habeas claims made by state prisoners. The dominant scholarly view, therefore, is that systemic constitutional violations are going unremedied and will continue to go unaddressed absent broadscale change.<br><br>This Essay argues that an unnoticed change in the Supreme Court’s certiorari practice over the last five years has reopened a previously closed path to remedying these violations. The Supreme Court has a long-stated presumption against taking cases that originate in state collateral proceedings, i.e., state proceedings in which a prisoner challenges his or her conviction or sentence, often on federal constitutional grounds, after the conviction has become final. This Essay shows that, although the Court previously hewed to that presumption, things have changed. Beginning in October Term 2015 and continuing to the present, the Court has steadily granted certiorari in these cases, indicating a sub silentio abrogation of its stated presumption. This Essay documents this changed certiorari practice and explains its significance, both for vindication of constitutional criminal procedure rights and for our understanding of the Supreme Court’s central role in shaping those rights.<br>\",\"PeriodicalId\":423661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Criminal Procedure (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Criminal Procedure (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3487105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Criminal Procedure (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3487105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

联邦法院是对州刑事诉讼中发生的违反宪法行为进行补救的极其重要的场所。但长期以来,批评人士一直哀叹很难获得联邦政府对这些违规行为的审查。最高法院很少在直接上诉时批准调卷令来审查州刑事定罪,包括对宪法缺陷的指控。同样,最高法院历来拒绝批准调卷令,以审查在州法院提出的人身保护申请。国会还限制了所有联邦法院对州囚犯提出的人身保护申请给予救济的能力。因此,占主导地位的学术观点是,系统性违反宪法的行为没有得到纠正,如果没有大规模的变革,这种情况将继续得不到解决。本文认为,在过去五年中,最高法院的调卷做法发生了未被注意到的变化,重新打开了补救这些侵权行为的以前封闭的道路。长期以来,最高法院一直有一个明确的推定,即不受理源于州附带诉讼的案件,即囚犯在最终定罪后,通常以联邦宪法理由对其定罪或判决提出质疑的州诉讼。本文表明,尽管法院以前坚持这一假设,但情况已经发生了变化。从2015年10月开始,一直持续到现在,最高法院在这些案件中稳步批准了调卷,表明其声明的推定已次沉默地废除。本文记录了这一变化的调卷程序实践,并解释了其重要性,无论是对宪法刑事诉讼权利的辩护,还是对我们对最高法院在塑造这些权利方面的核心作用的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Direct Collateral Review
Federal courts are vitally important fora in which to remedy constitutional violations that occur during state criminal proceedings. But critics have long lamented the difficultly of obtaining federal review of these violations. The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari to review state criminal convictions, including allegations of constitutional defects, on direct appeal. Likewise, the Court has historically declined to grant certiorari to review habeas claims that originate in state courts. And Congress has circumscribed the ability of all federal courts to grant relief on habeas claims made by state prisoners. The dominant scholarly view, therefore, is that systemic constitutional violations are going unremedied and will continue to go unaddressed absent broadscale change.

This Essay argues that an unnoticed change in the Supreme Court’s certiorari practice over the last five years has reopened a previously closed path to remedying these violations. The Supreme Court has a long-stated presumption against taking cases that originate in state collateral proceedings, i.e., state proceedings in which a prisoner challenges his or her conviction or sentence, often on federal constitutional grounds, after the conviction has become final. This Essay shows that, although the Court previously hewed to that presumption, things have changed. Beginning in October Term 2015 and continuing to the present, the Court has steadily granted certiorari in these cases, indicating a sub silentio abrogation of its stated presumption. This Essay documents this changed certiorari practice and explains its significance, both for vindication of constitutional criminal procedure rights and for our understanding of the Supreme Court’s central role in shaping those rights.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Direct Collateral Review Introducing Apology Legislation in Civil Law Systems. A New Way to Encourage Out-of-Court Dispute Resolution Assessing Risk Assessment in Action The History of Misdemeanor Bail Safety from False Convictions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1