{"id":20721,"date":"2024-06-12T21:41:53","date_gmt":"2024-06-13T01:41:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-112\/volume-112-issue-3-march-2024\/too-late-not-to-die-an-empirical-review-of-procedural-default-in-capital-habeas-cases-2017-2021\/"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:12:48","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:12:48","slug":"too-late-not-to-die-an-empirical-review-of-procedural-default-in-capital-habeas-cases-2017-2021","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-112\/volume-112-issue-3-march-2024\/too-late-not-to-die-an-empirical-review-of-procedural-default-in-capital-habeas-cases-2017-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"Too Late Not to Die: An Empirical Review of Procedural Default in Capital Habeas Cases, 2017\u20132021"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"p2\">What happens when a criminal defendant fails to raise a federal claim in the manner required by state procedure? In 1963, the Supreme Court made a holding on that question that has endured for more than sixty years. In such situations, the Court held, the defendant has forfeited a state remedy but has not necessarily waived a federal right.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20721_1' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20721_1'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>1<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20721_1' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #1<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20721_1' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20721_1' tabindex='-1'>1<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #1 content: <\/span><i>See <\/i>Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 427\u201328 (1963).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t<span class=\"s1\">\u00a0<\/span>For that reason, a defendant who has procedurally defaulted a meritorious federal claim in state court is still \u201cin custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States\u201d\u2014and therefore is still among the class of people for whom Congress has chosen to provide a federal remedy in the form of a writ of habeas corpus.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20721_2' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20721_2'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>2<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20721_2' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #2<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20721_2' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20721_2' tabindex='-1'>2<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #2 content: <\/span>28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2254(a).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Much about the law of federal habeas corpus has changed since the Court decided that case, <i>Fay v. Noia<\/i>. But neither the Court nor Congress has ever overruled <i>Fay<\/i>\u2019s holding that procedural default does not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction under the habeas statute.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20721_3' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20721_3'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>3<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20721_3' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #3<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20721_3' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20721_3' tabindex='-1'>3<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #3 content: <\/span><i>See, e.g.<\/i>, Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 89 (1997); <i>see also <\/i>BRIAN R. MEANS, FEDERAL HABEAS MANUAL \u00a7 9B:3, Westlaw (database updated May 2023) (explaining that Congress \u201cdid not change the application of . . . procedural default principles\u201d when it last significantly revised the federal habeas statute in 1996). <i>See generally <\/i>Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, tit. I, 110 Stat. 1214, 1217\u201326 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t<span class=\"s1\">\u00a0<\/span>Nevertheless, beginning in the late 1970s, the Court decided, based on its own policy judgment, that procedural default should be strictly enforced against criminal defendants in all but the rarest of federal habeas cases\u2014an approach Congress has never codified.\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20721_4' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20721_4'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>4<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20721_4' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #4<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20721_4' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20721_4' tabindex='-1'>4<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #4 content: <\/span>Although it is tempting to view Congress\u2019s inaction as an endorsement of the current default rules, the Court has repeatedly adhered to a presumption against \u201cdraw[ing] inferences from Congress\u2019 failure to act\u201d\u2014a presumption it has applied to the federal habeas statute itself. <i>See <\/i>Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 632 (1993) (quoting Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293, 306 (1988)); <i>cf. <\/i>Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 186 (1994) (\u201cIt is \u2018impossible to assert with any degree of assurance that congressional failure to act represents\u2019 affirmative congressional approval of the [courts\u2019] statutory interpretation.\u201d (alteration in original) (quoting Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 175 n.1 (1989))).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t<span class=\"s1\">\u00a0<\/span>Decades of experience and the findings of this Note demonstrate that, at least in the death penalty context, a new approach is needed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">This Note presents the results of an empirical review of the federal habeas cases of every person executed by a state in the five years between 2017 and 2021. During that time, at least twenty-six people were executed after a federal court declined to consider the merits of at least one claim that had been procedurally defaulted\u201430.6% of all people executed in those years. At the same time, this Note encouragingly finds that courts routinely consider the merits of defaulted claims notwithstanding unexcused default. In 93.2% of cases involving defaulted claims, the court made clear that at least one such claim was (in its view) meritless. And in a substantial majority of cases (62.2%), the court considered, in one way or another, the merits of all defaulted claims.<\/p>\n<p>Continue reading <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/26\/2024\/06\/Dame_Too-Late.pdf\"><strong><em>Too Late Not to Die: An Empirical Review of Procedural Default in Capital Habeas<\/em><\/strong><\/a><br \/>\n<em><strong>Cases, 2017\u20132021<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/26\/2024\/06\/Dame_Too-Late.pdf\" class=\"pdfemb-viewer\" style=\"\" data-width=\"max\" data-height=\"max\" data-toolbar=\"bottom\" data-toolbar-fixed=\"off\">Dame_Too-Late<\/a>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>What happens when a criminal defendant fails to raise a federal claim in the manner required by state procedure? In 1963, the Supreme Court made a holding on that question [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13235,"featured_media":0,"parent":20685,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-20721","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13235"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20721"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20721\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23197,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20721\/revisions\/23197"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20685"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}