As the article below discusses, the California Supreme Court last week issued a decision putting strict page limits on habeas briefs. What is ironic to me, however, is that courts have created the situation where attorneys feel they must file ridiculously thick briefs due to all the strict procedural rules created by courts aimed at causing habeas petitioners to default claims for not properly raising or exhausting them. At the Ohio Innocence Project, we’ve learned through experience that we even have to raise issues that we feel are not supported by the evidence (and possibly subject to Rule 11 sanctions), just to keep the courts from later ruling that we have not properly preserved issues (see story here).
From Law.com:
SAN FRANCISCO — Frustrated by 500-page briefs in capital habeas corpuscases, the California Supreme Court issued its own 120-page ruling Thursday laying out strict new limits and warning of sanctions if they’re not followed.
The court harshly criticized the defense lawyers in In re Reno, 12 C.D.O.S. 10049, labeling various portions of their petition “untimely,” “improper,” “patently meritless,” “grossly misleading” and based on “stock justifications.” But it stopped short of issuing sanctions, as it had threatened to do beforeargument in the case, which had caused a storm in the capital defense bar. Instead, the court cautioned that violating its new rules, which include a 50-page limit on successive habeas petitions, could lead to sanctions and State Bar discipline in the future.
Abusive habeas petitions “along with other factors have created a significant threat to our capacity to timely and fairly adjudicate such matters,” Justice Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
Wrongful Convictions Blog 
