JUSTICE SCALIA WAS RIGHT: "NO ONE REALLY BELIEVES THAT [MARTINEZ] WILL REMAIN LIMITED TO INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE-OF-TRIAL-COUNSEL CASES"

This Comment argues that there is no logical reason to limit the application of Martinez to only ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims. Extension to other nonrecord based claims, such as Brady violations, jury tampering, or ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel, is the only logical, f...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Houston law review 2017-04, Vol.54 (5), p.1349
Main Author: Davis, Kirsty
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Criminal law
Habeas corpus
Judges & magistrates
Legal counsel
Scalia, Antonin
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This Comment argues that there is no logical reason to limit the application of Martinez to only ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims. Extension to other nonrecord based claims, such as Brady violations, jury tampering, or ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel, is the only logical, fair, and just conclusion. The principles behind Martinez demand expansion. Part II will provide a brief overview of federal habeas and the barriers to relief that have been erected over the years by Congress and the judicial system. Part III will address the problems of ineffective-assistance-of-post-conviction-counsel and how petitioners lack means of redress. Part IV will describe the Supreme Court of the United States case Martinez v. Ryan, as well as the Court's holding and reasoning. Part V will address how the courts have already expanded Martinez, current issues of expansion that will likely come before the Supreme Court imminently, and the future of Martinez.
ISSN:0018-6694