Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (view source)
Revision as of 17:54, August 19, 2007
, 17:54, August 19, 2007a start
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) requires onvicted criminals to receive permission from the court of appeals prior to filing second or successive [[federal habeas]] applications. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Even if permission is sought, AEDPA requires courts to decline such requests in all but two narrow circumstances. Section 2244(b)(2) states:<ref>See also § 2244(b)(3)(C)</ref>
:"A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless --
"(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroac-tive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
"(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
"(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and con-vincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense."
[[category:terrorism]]
[[category:Eighth Amendment]]
:"A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless --
"(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroac-tive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
"(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
"(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and con-vincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense."
[[category:terrorism]]
[[category:Eighth Amendment]]