In the interest of justice, should AEDPA be reformed?
In the "interest of justice" is an axiom often used by judges when writing legal opinions to describe when it is more important to honor what is right than to turn a blind eye to it.
So what does it mean if the court tells you that "in the interest of justice " your conviction should be overturned? Then proceed to state that there is no logical reason your conviction should remain, as "the interest of justice" should prevail... but then...not actually do so ?
Would this mean "What is in the interest of justice " has little to no real meaning? Lets explore...
Keith says:
"The scene described above is actually what happened to me! Both the trial judge and prosecutor who reviewed my case BOTH agreed that the RIGHT thing to do .... is to overturn my convictions as 4 of my charges should never have even been charged in the first place. Yes, this is what was actually said. In addition to the court who then makes all the final decisions (Court Of Criminal Appeals ) says they agree as well. So where is the problem? Well, the Court then explains that the "interest of justice" doesn't really matter or have any actual meaning. They continue to explain the rule that states you have to have pointed out this error in less than 1 year. even if you were a teenager at the time and it would have been virtually impossible to figure out the law... So we are going to use this as a reason to turn a blind eye ... we shouldn't turn a blind eye to people whose trial was not fair but they turned a blind eye anyway!
In other words, they know what is RIGHT, but will do what they know is wrong.
Why would anyone of any moral integrity say to anyone? How does that even make sense? How does someone who has sworn to do what is right consciously do what is wrong? I'm supposed to be the bad guy and i didn't even do that."
LET'S EXAMINE THE COURT:
IS this really a rule of the Court?
All courts design their rules more or less in line with the Federal rules of the court as the fed's essentially oversee and assures all rules assure Constitutional Rights. Therefore, the federal courts also decide what is the interest of justice. According to Fed rule 33 ,a court may vacate ANY judgement and grant a new trial if, the interest of justice, so requires. When this is interpreted the courts say they "have very little success" in actually giving this any meaning.
This is the same in Texas under TRAP rule 43.3 and all states have similar "interest of justice" clause that gives them permission to right obvious wrongs. basically, all courts have the ability to address Constitutional issues in the interest of justice" but just get to pick and choose when to actually apply it.
So why is there no meaning to something so meaningful ?
THE AEDPA:
The AEDPA is a complex (overburdensome) reforming of how and individual can attempt to prove ones innocene or attempt to assure that one was treated justly when dealing with our U.S. legal system .
This bill was passed in 1996 by tough on crime advocate - lets not oly not acknowledge teen brain science but actually push to punish teens more severely - Mr. Bill Clinton.
This was passed to limit the amount of filings federal judges would have to read as it was apparently to much work and to time consuming to review all filings claiming injustices within the system. This was especially and issue in Death Penalty cases ,where certain prosecutors were complaining that more people actually need to face the Death Chamber and not have to wait so long to be killed.
So the federal judges assisted law makers in writing this bill by basically saying ... "hey, let's have it say everyone has a right to file a writ or appeal ... but just say it has to be done within 1 year. This way ,if they can't figure it out in one year, we can just claim the rule was fair and therefore we can't review the claim. Even if the claim is valid." As Americans we should just feel lucky enough that we are in America as some places don't get to file anything at all? Does this will stop the judgesvfrom having to review more paperwork, and make sure Death Sentences are carried out quicker?
Keiths thoughts:
"Is this the spirit of the AEDPA? The judge had too much to read at the time? I could be mistaken but isn't that one of the biggest parts of their job? Didn't they sign up for this? Maybe i am naive but we aren't talking about ... jumping out of a plane with no parachute are we? I mean that would be dangerous! Are we feeding great white sharks by hand? That is pretty risky! No one asked them to run into a wall headfirst with no helmet did they? That wouldn't be reasonable to anyone .
I mean aren't we just talking about reading & assuring what is just? Did they not just take an oath to do this? Lets encourage and pass a law that cuts our workload because instead?. " My job is to hard ??? Don't get me wrong ,it is a difficult job ,and not for everyone and shouldn't be as judges should be hard working, highly intelligent, morally impeccable citizens with a desire to do what is right at all times. If judges were specifically lobbying to lighten the work load at the expense of assuring someones rights, to me that does not seem motivated by the interest of justice, but instead directly against it.
They tend to respond by saying cases need to be finished....anyone who was a victim needs to know the perpetrator is not getting out of prison. I get it and am all for justice in sentencing but if the facts are there shouldn't that be enough? If a trial and all rights are guaranteed, what would be the fear? It would seem that the only people withsomething to fear would be the people who were complicit in violating someones rights in order to obtain a conviction.
I feel as this legislation intentionally prevents people who find themselves in prison from filing anything to the courts that they couldn't figure out in that first 1 year while simultaneously experiencing the potentially most traumatic, life altering change and adjustment you will ever go through in transitioning from free society into a prison life. It is not as Hard or difficult as spending an extra year in prison ... because that is the reality for the one going through it and not them so its 'okay.' When all that is asked is that if something is so wrong as to require more council, all that we ask is to please not turn a blind eye to it?
Or because words that say ,we can vacate a conviction when the interest of justice would deem your conviction to have say ... violated Double Jeopardy ,or an attorney denied your right to speak up for yourself or a prosecutor enticed a jailhouse witness to knowingly lie to help get your conviction, and this has never been looked at and is obvious and we can see it ... when it is so obvious that we have to point it out, but then make an excuse that the rule says 1 year and therefore 'in the interest of justice has no meaning" so just spend the rest of your life in prison."