Rideau v. Whitley: Lack of Evidence or Lack of Understanding?

The author wishes to thank Professor Joseph T. Bockrath, R. Gordon Kean Professor of Law, Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, for his invaluable research assistance in preparing this article. The author is also grateful to Carl J. Serrat, III for his insightful comments on this article and for his constant encouragement and support throughout her law school career.

Introduction

Often referred to as the "Great Writ," the writ of habeas corpus, is the exclusive federal remedy available to a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his or her conviction and seeks release. The prisoner files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a United States District Court. The petition alleges not guilt or innocence but only that the prisoner is held in violation of his or her constitutional rights. In response, the warden asserts the prisoner is lawfully detained on the basis of a criminal conviction. At that point the district court is in the position to review the petitioner's claim and determine whether his or her detention is in violation of federal law. As a way of taming the Great Writ, Congress enacted Rule 9(a). Emphasizing the significant interplay between the writ of habeas corpus and Rule 9(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases,1 the Fifth Circuit declared: "because Rule 9(a) authorizes the summary disposition of habeas corpus petitions on grounds unrelated to the constitutional claims, its application necessarily must be limited to avoid the abrogation of the very purpose of the writ."2

In 1976, Congress enacted Rule 9(a) to minimize abuse of the writ of habeas corpus by limiting the petitioner's right to assert stale claims. Under Rule 9(a) a petition attacking the judgment of a state court may be dismissed on grounds of delay if the State has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition. The equitable nature of the rule allows for petition at any time if the prisoner can prove the petition is based on grounds of which he or she could not have had knowledge in the ordinary exercise of diligence under the law.

In Rideau v. Whitley,3 petitioner Wilbert Rideau, claimed the selection of the Louisiana grand jury that indicted him for murder made him the victim of racial ...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here