Federal Review of State Criminal Convictions: A Structural Approach to Adequacy Doctrine

49 Pages Posted: 26 Aug 2016 Last revised: 25 Jun 2017

Date Written: August 15, 2016

Abstract

Modern state postconviction review systems feature procedural labyrinths so complicated and confusing that indigent defendants have no realistic prospect of complying with the rules. When defendants predictably fail to navigate these mazes, state and federal courts deem their claims procedurally defaulted and refuse to consider those claims on their merits. As a result, systemic violations of criminal procedure rights – like the right to effective counsel – persist without judicial correction.

But the law contains a tool which, if properly adapted, could bring these systemic problems to the attention of federal courts: procedural adequacy. Procedural adequacy doctrine gives federal courts the power to ignore procedural defaults and declare state procedural rules inadequate when those rules unduly burden defendants’ abilities to assert violations their federal rights. And unlike the more commonly invoked cause-and-prejudice doctrine, which excuses default on the theory that a defendant’s unusual circumstances justify an exception to the rules, procedural adequacy doctrine allows courts to question the legitimacy of the state procedural regimes themselves. As a result, procedural adequacy doctrine can catalyze reform in a way that cause-and-prejudice cannot.

For procedural adequacy litigation to catalyze reform, however, it must be adapted to modern circumstances in one crucial respect. Historically, procedural adequacy doctrine focused on cases involving the deliberate manipulation of individual rules. Today, what is needed is a structural approach to adequacy, one that would consider how the interaction of multiple procedural rules unfairly burdens federal rights. Such a structural approach to adequacy is consistent with the doctrine’s original purposes and is the most sensible way to apply procedural adequacy under current conditions. Litigants should accordingly deploy a structural approach to procedural adequacy doctrine and use it to stop states from burying systemic constitutional violations in complicated procedural labyrinths.

Keywords: criminal procedure, habeas corpus, federal courts, adequate and independent state grounds, cause and prejudice, procedural default, right to counsel

Suggested Citation

Primus, Eve Brensike, Federal Review of State Criminal Convictions: A Structural Approach to Adequacy Doctrine (August 15, 2016). Michigan Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2828715

Eve Brensike Primus (Contact Author)

University of Michigan Law School ( email )

625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
122
rank
225,032
Abstract Views
578
PlumX Metrics