Habeas corpus

SIGNIFICANCE: Habeas corpus has long been part of the common law to protect people from unlawful imprisonment; the judicial branch of government has authority over the executive police power in this regard. When prisoners’ appeals are exhausted, the writ of habeas corpus provides an avenue through which they can request reviews of their convictions.

Petitions for writs of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, are among the most commonly used proceedings to test the constitutionality of detentions and imprisonments. Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase that translates as “that you have the body.” Prisoners or detainees who apply for the writ are usually known as petitioners, and the named respondents are the persons who have legal custody of them. Petitions may be brought either under state law or, if certain conditions have been met, under federal law. Although persons who are being detained pending trials or other proceedings can also petition for the writs, by far the largest category of petitioners includes those who have already been convicted of crimes.

Procedures

The procedures used to petition for state writs of habeas corpus vary from state to state and are governed by state statutes and court rules. In the federal system, petitions for writs of habeas corpus by state prisoners and detainees cannot be filed until all available remedies under state law have been exhausted. This exhaustion rule is based upon the concept of comity, which requires the courts of one jurisdiction to avoid interfering in the affairs of other jurisdictions unless absolutely necessary.

The exhaustion requirement gives the states the opportunity to address constitutional issues raised by their own prisoners and detainees, perhaps avoiding the need for the federal courts to become involved. Federal writs of habeas corpus are further limited by the requirement that federal petitions be filed within one year after convictions, or other actions, become final. This limit was imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Finally, to prevent abuse of the writ, there are stringent requirements on the filing of second or successive writs addressing the same issues.

Federal writs of habeas corpus are used by detainees and prisoners who claim that their continued detention or imprisonment violates the US Constitution. Errors of state law do not support habeas relief, unless those errors also violate a federal constitutional provision. Detainees usually complain that they are being held without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment, or that they have not been provided with speedy trials, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Petitions of convicted prisoners often raise numerous points attacking their state convictions on federal constitutional grounds. However, habeas corpus does not constitute an appeal and is governed by different standards from those that govern essentially the same grounds in direct appeals. For example, a state court error—even an error that violates the federal Constitution—will not support relief unless the state court has also acted unreasonably. In other words, the state court must not only be wrong but must also have been unreasonable in reaching its incorrect decision. The federal courts must also presume that a state court’s factual findings are correct, unless a prisoner can prove that the findings are incorrect by clear and convincing evidence.

Grounds for Habeas Corpus

The grounds urged by prisoners in federal habeas petitions fall into two general categories. The first contains errors relating to conduct of trials that do not relate to particular constitutional rights. Such trial errors support habeas relief only when they are so grossly prejudicial that they fatally infect the trials and deny the fundamental fairness that is the essence of due process. Federal courts approach such grounds with considerable self-restraint, and it is usually only the most egregious of errors that entitle state prisoners to federal habeas relief.

The second category contains grounds based upon violations of particular constitutional rights, such as the right to effective counsel or the right against self-incrimination. When state prisoners can prove violations of such fundamental rights, it is more likely that relief will be granted.

Petitions for habeas corpus can also be used by prisoners to attack the execution of their sentences rather than the convictions themselves. In other words, prisoners can use writs to complain that their sentence has not been computed correctly or that their earned sentence credits have been lost. However, just as with petitions attacking convictions, petitions attacking execution of sentences must allege violation of the federal Constitution. Such petitions are usually based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. When petitions are granted, the prisoners are not set free unless corrections of the errors result in enough sentence credits to entitle them to immediate release.

Most petitions for habeas corpus in noncapital cases are filed by prisoners pro se, that is, without legal representation. Prisons ordinarily provide preprinted forms to be used by prisoners who wish to file petitions for habeas corpus. They also provide law libraries for them to do legal research. When a court determines that a hearing should be conducted on a prisoner’s petition, counsel is usually appointed to assist the prisoner. However, most petitions are resolved without the need for hearings.

Habeas Corpus and Guantánamo Bay

Since 2008, the issue of the right to the writ of habeas corpus for the prisoners held at the US detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has remained controversial. That year, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 majority that the inmates at Guantánamo Bay had the right to habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their military detention, and that the previous Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional. After that decision, the Supreme Court refused petitions submitted by individuals being held at the Cuban detention camp under US jurisdiction. In 2020, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the prisoners were not entitled to due process. This decision in a case brought by a detainee who had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2005 was seen as affirmation that detainees had only one avenue to challenge their detention: habeas corpus.

Bibliography

Barnes, Patricia G. CQ’s Desk Reference on American Criminal Justice: Over Five Hundred Answers to Frequently Asked Questions from Law Enforcement to Corrections. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000. Print.

Hanson, Roger A. Federal Habeas Corpus Review: Challenging State Court Criminal Convictions. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995. Print.

Lewis, Anthony. Gideon’s Trumpet. New York: Vintage, 1989. Print.

Rosenberg, Carol. "Court Rules Guantánamo Detainees Are Not Entitled to Due Process." The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/us/politics/guantanamo-detainees-due-process.html. Accessed 5 July 2024.

Sacks, Mike. "Supreme Court Declines Guantanamo Bay Cases: It's Been 4 Years of Silence." Huffington Post, 11 June 2012, www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-guantanamo-bay-dc-circuit-boumediene‗n‗1567367. Accessed 5 July 2024.

Schmalleger, Frank. Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the Twenty-first Century. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2005. Print.

Wert, Justin J. Habeas Corpus in America: The Politics of Individual Rights. UP of Kansas, 2023. Print.

"Writ of Habeas Corpus." US Marshals Service, www.usmarshals.gov/what-we-do/service-of-process/criminal-process/writ-of-habeas-corpus. Accessed 5 July 2024.