The New Role of Federal Habeas Courts in Guaranteeing the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel

The general idea is that federal courts don’t have much power to review state court decisions anymore. There are a lot of rules and restrictions that make it really hard for people to get their cases heard in federal court. But there is an exception for claims of having a bad lawyer. If you can prove that your lawyer did a really bad job and that it affected your case, you might have a chance to get your case looked at again in federal court. This rule gives people a good chance to fix mistakes that their lawyer made during their trial. Habeas petitioners now have a better chance of bringing new claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in federal court, instead of being limited to claims raised in state courts. Federal courts can review these claims without deferring to state court decisions and may allow petitioners to gather new evidence to support their claims. There are still restrictions on federal habeas relief, such as limits on filing multiple habeas petitions, but new claims of ineffective assistance of counsel can potentially bypass some of these restrictions and give petitioners a stronger chance at success in federal court. The one-year statute of limitations for filing a petition in federal court can be extended in certain circumstances, like if there was a state-created obstacle, a new rule of law applies, or if the factual basis of the claim couldn’t have been found earlier. The statute is also paused while a state postconviction motion is pending. However, there are still strict rules that petitioners and their lawyers have to follow when bringing claims to federal court, including making sure to present the claim in state court first. If a claim is not presented properly in state court, it can be dismissed in federal court. There are some exceptions to these rules, like if there is evidence of innocence or if the petitioner’s lawyer did not do a good job. In the past, if someone claimed their lawyer didn’t do a good job, they had to bring it up in state court or they couldn’t bring it up at all. But in 2012, the Supreme Court changed the rules. Now, if you didn’t have a lawyer to help you in state court, or if your lawyer didn’t do a good job, you can still bring it up in federal court. This means more people can argue that their lawyer didn’t help them like they should have, and more cases will be looked at by federal judges. When federal courts review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) that was already decided by a state court, they have to be very deferential to the state court’s decision. They can only grant relief if the state court’s decision was unreasonable based on federal law established by the U.S. Supreme Court. They can’t second-guess the state court’s interpretation of state law and can only consider the evidence that was already presented in the state court. However, if a petitioner uses the Martinez rule to raise a new IAC claim, federal courts can review the claim more closely and even hold a new hearing to consider the evidence. The rules about when new laws can apply to old cases are different in federal and Florida courts. The Supreme Court hasn’t applied many recent cases to old cases, except for the right to have a lawyer. Claims of bad legal help generally don’t have to follow the same rules. A new rule says that claims of bad legal help can get more review in federal courts. This might give some people a better chance to prove they were treated unfairly in their cases. Overall, the new rule could help a lot of people who didn’t have a lawyer after their trial. Under a rule called Martinez, if you didn’t have a lawyer to help you appeal your criminal conviction in state court, and your appeal was denied, you might still be able to get help from a federal court. This is especially true if you couldn’t afford a lawyer earlier, but can now. This rule can help you fix mistakes that your previous lawyer made, or allow you to make new claims that you didn’t know about before. It’s a second chance for people who couldn’t afford a lawyer before, and it can make a big difference. If a defendant has the same lawyer for their state and federal post-conviction review, there might be a conflict of interest if the lawyer didn’t raise all the necessary claims in state court. After a recent court decision, it’s best for the lawyer to refer the case to another lawyer to raise any new claims that the first lawyer didn’t bring up. This might lead to more cases getting a fair review in federal court. It’s important for state lawyers to know that federal courts can now say if they didn’t do a good job. This should help defendants get a fair chance to present their claims. Overall, many defendants need help to make sure their rights are protected during the post-conviction review process. The process of Habeas Corpus, which allows people to challenge their imprisonment, is very difficult. Only a few cases actually result in relief. Some important Supreme Court cases have set the standard for what makes a lawyer’s help during a case good enough. Different rules in different states can affect the outcome of someone’s Habeas Corpus case. Different federal appeals courts have different opinions on whether Martinez applies to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The 11th Circuit has not ruled on the issue, but there is some indication that Martinez may have a limited application in that circuit.

If a claim is not raised in a subsequent appeal after being raised at the initial level, Martinez does not apply and the claim is likely procedurally defaulted.

Federal courts must assume that a claim was considered on its merits and rejected unless a state court explicitly relies on a procedural rule to avoid reaching the merits of the claim.

The “contrary to” prong of the law is satisfied if the state court reaches a conclusion opposite to the Supreme Court on a question of law, or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on similar facts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has said that if a finding of fact is not reasonable, the presumption of correctness disappears. This means that the court needs to defer to the lower court’s decision unless it was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court has also made decisions about the level of advice that defense attorneys need to give their clients. These decisions can affect cases that are already closed, so it’s important to stay updated on the law.

Overall, these cases show that lawyers have a big impact on the outcome of legal cases, and it’s important for them to give their clients good advice and representation. We want to teach our members to do their job well and help the community. We also want to make sure that the legal system is fair and keep learning about the law.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-new-role-of-federal-habeas-courts-in-guaranteeing-the-right-to-effective-assistance-of-counsel/