Article by Marc M. Arkin
Federal habeas corpus petitions allow state prisoners to collaterally attack a state court conviction on the ground that the conviction is constitutionally infirm. Whether federal courts should fully review state court determinations of constitutional claims or whether they should be limited to only those instances in which the state forum did not provide an adequate hearing of the federal claims is an issue of some debate. Those engaged in the debate who rely on historical sources to prove their point generally rely on the same body of literature. This Article argues that a large portion of this literature does not address collateral review of state court convictions. In its early stages, habeas corpus petitions were brought in state court by individuals detained by federal authorities for military enlistment. In the state courts, habeas questions concerned whether a court could hear evidence to contradict a detaining authority's petition prior to conviction. Later, in the federal courts, the same issues which existed in the state courts arose, only this time the detainees were federal officers in pursuit of fugitive slaves. The Article concludes that given the history of habeas corpus, debates over the extent of collateral review should remain in the twentieth century.
About the Author
Marc M. Arkin. Professor, Fordham University School of Law.
Citation
70 Tul. L. Rev. 1 (1995)