skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 113243 Find in a Library
Title: Post-Conviction Review: What State Trial Courts Can Do To Reduce Problems
Journal: Judicature  Volume:72  Issue:1  Dated:(June-July 1988)  Pages:53-57
Author(s): F J Remington
Date Published: 1988
Page Count: 5
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Although the debate as to whether the scope of Federal habeas corpus review should be narrowed or expanded goes on, the real issue is how to ensure the protection of defendants' constitutional rights; improved State court procedures that ensure informed decisionmaking by defendants and limit the need for post conviction review are needed.
Abstract: Under both the expanded and restrictive views of Federal habeas corpus, there is a Federal interest in improving State trial court procedures. Under the expanded view, the Federal interest is in limiting the number of cases in which Federal courts have to overrule the State court for failure to apply Federal constitutional requirements properly. Under the restrictive view, the Federal interest is in ensuring that State court procedures prevent the State prisoner from being able to raise constitutional issues in Federal court. Difficulties that impede the development of State trail court procedures to achieve either objective are the trial judge's lack of relevant information, ritualized procedures that do not achieve court objectives, and the difficulty of making a record adequate to preclude subsequent access to Federal habeas corpus. This article illustrates the difficulties of devising a procedure that will enable the trial judge to ensure a defendant has made an informed decision, of allocating responsibility between the judge and defense counsel to ensure a defendant has made an informed decision, and of developing adequate procedures where it is unclear whether defense counsel or the defendant should make the decision. 30 footnotes.
Main Term(s): Habeas corpus
Index Term(s): Appeal procedures; Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Inmate lawsuits; Post-conviction remedies; State courts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.