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: 119905 Find in a Library
Title: Current Habeas Corpus Issues
Journal: New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement  Volume:15  Issue:1  Dated:(Winter 1989)  Pages:1-25
Author(s): K Maniscalco
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 25
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper examines the transformations of habeas corpus and its governing law, with a focus on procedural defaults.
Abstract: The paper examines the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Fay v. Noia (1963), Wainwright v. Sykes (1977), and Murray v. Carrier (1986) to show that the Court used the issues of sandbagging, attorney inadvertence, and the attorney's binding power over the defendant to yield its desired result in narrowing the scope of habeas review, thereby curtailing the number of petitions to be granted by Federal courts. All of the decisions were rendered to deter the attorney from acting in a given way. "Fay," however, offers a realistic measure of protection of the habeas petitioner by enforcing intentional but not inadvertent procedural defaults. The threat of a more "airtight system of forfeitures" would deprive the habeas petitioner of the opportunity to litigate. Moreover, if the State's interest in finality is not sufficient to defeat a meritorious novel claim, there is no reason why a defendant should be bound to his/her counsel's inadvertence and therefore forfeit the client's claim. The Court clearly has created a maze of procedural hurdles and forfeitures, losing sight of the intention of habeas corpus, i.e., the prevention of unlawful incarceration. 167 footnotes.
Main Term(s): Habeas corpus
Index Term(s): Attorney competence; US Supreme Court decisions
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.