U.S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Davenport
No. 20-826 4/21/22
Issue:
After a state court determines that an error at trial does not prejudice a defendant, may a federal court grant habeas relief solely on its independent assessment of the error’s prejudicial effect under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993)?
Holding:
No. A federal court must apply both the Brecht test outlined by the Supreme Court as well as the test set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) enacted by Congress. Here, the federal court incorrectly granted relief based only on Brecht, which allows relief when a trial court error has a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the outcome of the defendant’s trial. However, when Congress enacts constitutionally valid rules, such as AEDPA, the courts must follow them. Under AEDPA, a federal court “shall not” grant relief unless the state court’s decision was “(1) ‘contrary to’ or an ‘unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal law, as determined by the decisions of this Court, or (2) based on an ‘unreasonable determination of the facts’ presented in the state-court proceeding.” Read opinion.
Dissent (Kagan, J. joined by Breyer and Sotomayor, J.J.):
The Court’s prior opinions have guided courts to utilize the Brecht test alone. “Now … courts will have to jump through AEDPA’s hoops as well, even though extra analysis will never lead to a different result.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
This decision will only directly affect those who practice in federal post-conviction habeas corpus cases. Obviously, the main importance of this decision is that a federal habeas corpus defendant must establish entitlement to relief under both Brecht and AEDPA. The dissent suggests that the result would not be different under either test. That is not altogether certain. The decision by the majority does not represent a ruling on the merits with regard to the lower federal court’s Brecht holding, but it does represent a ruling on the merits with regard to AEDPA. The majority held that the Michigan court of appeals did not reach an unreasonable result in denying relief to the defendant and that, therefore, AEDPA required denial of relief to the defendant.
Texas Supreme Court
In re G.S.
No. 21-0127 4/22/22
Issue:
Was a claimant entitled to wrongful-imprisonment compensation under the Tim Cole Act where he was granted habeas relief (based on ineffective assistance of counsel), but then charges were dismissed and on the district attorneys’ motion, the trial court expunged all records related to his arrest and conviction?
Holding:
No. To be eligible for compensation under the Act, the claimant must establish his eligibility in one of three ways: 1) “a full pardon on the basis of innocence for the crime for which [he] was sentenced”; 2) relief granted “in accordance with a writ of habeas corpus that is based on a court finding or determination that [he] is actually innocent of the crime for which [he] was sentenced”; or 3) the trial court dismissed the charge against the claimant based on a motion to dismiss in which the state’s attorney states that no credible evidence exists that inculpates the defendant and … the state’s attorney believes that the defendant is actually innocent of the crime for which [he] was sentenced.” Because the claimant’s situation does not fall within one of the statute’s eligibility requirements, he is not entitled to compensation under the Tim Cole Act. Read opinion.
Concurrence (Lehrmann, J.):
Two issues have been brought to light from this case: 1) timing can have an unintended detrimental effect on a claimant’s eligibility, and 2) although prosecutors could have many legitimate reasons for not including the proper language, “a claimant’s entitlement to compensation can hinge on the apparently unbridled discretion of the state’s attorney to include, or to not include the requisite language in a motion to dismiss following receipt of exculpatory evidence.” For those reasons, the Legislature should consider amending the Act “to ensure that individuals who should be eligible for compensation under the Tim Cole Act are eligible.” Read opinion.
Commentary:
The defendant in this case was granted habeas corpus relief because he apparently received poor parole-eligibility advice from his attorney, nothing even approaching an actual-innocence claim. So there was no improper use of “unbridled discretion” on the part of a prosecutor in this case. Still, since this decision comes from the state’s highest (civil) court, legislation could be expected to clarify the rules regarding what constitutes a successful actual-innocence claim for purposes of the Tim Cole Act. If a defendant is truly actually innocent, a prosecutor should definitely include that language in a motion to dismiss to make it completely clear.
Attorney General Opinion Request
RQ-0455-KP 4/21/22
Issue:
Can a county commissioners court dispose of culverts no longer in suitable or functioning condition under §263.151 of the Tex. Gov’t Code as “items routinely discarded as waste”?
Requested By:
Dana Young, Cherokee County Attorney