Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1848068
 
 

Footnotes (144)



 


 



Insurmountable Obstacles: Structural Errors, Procedural Default, and Ineffective Assistance


Amy Knight Burns


Stanford University

May 20, 2011

Stanford Law Review, Vol. 64, 2011

Abstract:     
Federal habeas corpus procedure involves an elaborate set of rules for when state criminal judgments may be reviewed by federal courts. One of these rules – the procedural default rule – forbids federal courts to review state judgments if the state rejected the proposed claim on procedural grounds. This bar may be overcome by a showing of cause and prejudice (a showing that the outcome of the trial would have been different absent the error.) In enforcing this rule, federal courts have failed to realize that there are some claims for which a showing of prejudice is never possible. These claims, sometimes called "structural errors," are exempt from harmless error review when they arise on direct appeal; in that context, courts have realized that demanding a showing that the error changed the outcome would in many cases be asking the impossible. A particularly troubling example is Batson claims; a prejudice requirement for such claims would mean that defendants would have to prove that a jury selected in the absence of racial discrimination would have reached a different verdict. Courts have realized that such a showing generally cannot be made, and granted relief anyway. What courts have not acknowledged is that the showing of prejudice is equally impossible in the habeas context. Instead, some courts have decided that prejudice can be presumed for structural errors in this posture, and other courts have required the impossible showing – meaning that such claims are doomed to fail under the procedural default rule in every instance, even where other, less serious claims can sometimes overcome the bar. This Note identifies and traces the two clashing strands of case law – the structural error cases and the procedural default cases – and explicates the underlying incompatibility. It then examines cases that have attempted to adjudicate such claims, and finally proposes a solution: that courts should modify their procedural default test to accommodate these claims.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 33

Keywords: Habeas Corpus, Structural Errors, Procedural Default, Circuit Split

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: May 23, 2011 ; Last revised: December 13, 2011

Suggested Citation

Burns, Amy Knight, Insurmountable Obstacles: Structural Errors, Procedural Default, and Ineffective Assistance (May 20, 2011). Stanford Law Review, Vol. 64, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1848068

Contact Information

Amy Knight Burns (Contact Author)
Stanford University ( email )
Stanford, CA 94305
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 888
Downloads: 101
Download Rank: 155,309
Footnotes:  144

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.265 seconds