A habeas corpus proceeding is where a person challenges the basis for their confinement. It's used by a person who is held in custody by a governmental authority. Commonly, it's someone in prison after conviction. One of the main functions of habeas corpus review is to protect innocent people from incarceration.

Federal habeas corpus lets federal courts order a state to release or retry prisoners held in violation of the US Constitution. Federal habeas review can take place only after a state conviction is final and all other state post-conviction remedies for relief have been tried.

Retroactivity

Retroactivity refers to the issue of whether a new rule of criminal procedure can be applied to a petitioner's case. A federal habeas petitioner is, by definition, a prisoner whose conviction is final.

A new rule is one that breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the states or the federal government. It's a rule that didn't exist at the time the conviction became final. For example, Supreme Court decisions reversing prior case law do state new rules.

Defendants convicted of criminal offenses usually can't contest their convictions with new rules. However, there are a few exceptions.

Retroactivity for habeas corpus cases is determined by a two-step analysis. First, the court making the retroactivity decision must decide if the rule in question is a new one. If the rule is a new one, the court must then decide whether the new rule falls within one of the very narrow exceptions. Unless an exception applies, all new rules are non-retroactive.

Exceptions to the General Rule of Non-Retroactivity

New constitutional rules of criminal procedure aren't retroactive unless covered by an exception.

The first exception is for court decisions that created a new rule based on fundamental constitutional liberty grounds.

The second exception is for new rules concerning fundamental fairness of the trial. A rule will fall within this exception only if it enhances the likelihood of an accurate conviction.

Courts are required to deny retroactive effect to a new rule unless they find the rule is an important procedural element, key to a trial working as an accurate determination of innocence or guilt.

Similar Treatment of Defendants

Courts must treat all defendants whose trials were tainted by the same newly recognized constitutional error in a similar manner. Therefore, each retroactivity decision determines the rights of a whole class of defendants.

Questions for Your Attorney

  • Can a new rule of criminal procedure be applied to a federal habeas petitioner?
  • How does a court determine what is a new rule of criminal procedure?
  • When is a state conviction case considered final?