CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, June 14, 2010

Today's criminal law/procedure review grants

Issue summaries are from ScotusBlog, which also links to briefs and opinions below. In the second case listed, the Court postponed further consideration of the jurisdictional question to the hearing of the case on the merits.

  • Cullen v. Pinholster: (1) Whether it is appropriate under § 2254 for a federal court to conclude that a state court’s rejection of a claim was unreasonable in light of facts that an applicant could have but never alleged in state court; and (2) what standard of review is applicable to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • Schwarzenegger v. Plata: (1) Whether the three-judge court below properly determined that crowding was the “primary cause” of continuing violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights to adequate health care, and that no remedy existed other than issuance of a Prisoner Release Order pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626; (2) whether the system-wide Prisoner Release Orders issued by the three-judge court are “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and [are] the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right” in compliance with the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); and (3) whether the same court properly gave ”substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system” in ordering a reduction in population of approximately 46,000 inmates.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2010/06/todays-criminal-lawprocedure-review-grants.html

| Permalink

Comments

Can the court actually order a reduction of the prison population? Especially since it was the court that sent those 46,000 inmates to prison in the first place?

Posted by: Joseph Marchelewski | Jun 14, 2010 12:08:57 PM

Post a comment