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: 97184 Find in a Library
Title: Habeas Corpus and the Burger Court
Journal: St Louis University Law Journal  Volume:28  Dated:(Fall 1984)  Pages:11-16
Author(s): T McMillian
Date Published: 1984
Page Count: 6
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have severely restricted, if not eliminated, Federal habeas corpus relief to State prisoners.
Abstract: In rendering these decisions, the Burger Court has shown its sensitivity to the restricted view of Federalism propounded by the President, members of Congress, and members of the Supreme Court. The Warren Court had a high regard for the writ of habeas corpus, but the Burger Court is taking a different approach, not because of any constitutional prohibition but for policy reasons. The reasons given are to decrease friction between the Federal and State levels, to promote the finality of criminal convictions, and to conserve judicial resources. The decisions have cut back on habeas corpus relief by withdrawing fourth amendment claims from habeas corpus proceedings, creating almost insurmountable procedural obstacles, and narrowing the scope of Federal review of claims properly before a court. Major decisions have included Stone v. Powell, Engle v. Isaac, United States v. Frady, and Rose v. Lundy. The restrictions which have resulted are disturbing, because decisions overturning State court convictions have been rare, and the procedural barriers may not necessarily promote judicial economy. The reasons given by the Court should not override the basic goal of Federal habeas corpus. Thirty-eight footnotes are listed.
Index Term(s): Habeas corpus; Inmate lawsuits; 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.