Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Enforcing the ABA Guidelines in Capital State Post-Conviction Proceedings after Martinez and Pinholster

12 Pages Posted: 16 Apr 2013 Last revised: 5 Aug 2015

Eric M. Freedman

Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law

Date Written: September 1, 2013

Abstract

This piece, published in Part 1 of Hofstra Law Review’s symposium marking the tenth anniversary of the ABA’s Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, considers the converging pressures now impelling the states to provide the effective assistance of counsel in state capital post-conviction proceedings. On the one hand, Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) - a case that will likely be expanded to a number of additional procedural and substantive contexts - warns the states that if they fail to provide such counsel, their capital convictions will be subject to searching federal review. On the other hand, Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011), offers the states the promise that if they do provide such counsel their capital convictions will be very deferentially treated on federal review. Thus, the forces of federalism may cause the states to adopt a beneficial reform that the Supreme Court has been unwilling to mandate under the Constitution.

Keywords: habeas corpus, post-conviction remedies, death penalty, right to counsel, federalism

Suggested Citation

Freedman, Eric M., Enforcing the ABA Guidelines in Capital State Post-Conviction Proceedings after Martinez and Pinholster (September 1, 2013). 41 Hofstra L. Rev. 591 (2013); Hofstra Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-10. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2251529

Eric M. Freedman (Contact Author)

Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law ( email )

121 Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY 11549
United States
516-463-5167 (Phone)
515-463-5129 (Fax)

Paper statistics

Downloads
131
Rank
183,789
Abstract Views
575