Punch and Jurists

Ashmus v. Calderon, No. C 93-0594 (TEH) (N.D.Cal.) (31 F.Supp.2d 1175) (December 24, 1998) (Judge Thelton E. Henderson) by In this case Judge Henderson held that California did not qualify for the "opt-in" requirements of Chapter 154 of the AEDPA permitting it to engage in expedited review of capital cases.

Hadix v. Johnson, No. 96-2463 (6th Cir.) (133 F.3d 940) (January 13, 1998) (Per Curiam) by This prison case is noted because it reversed a highly persuasive decision of Judge Feikens (reported at Hadix v. Johnson, 947 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Mich. 1996) (Hadix I)) in which he held unconstitutional one of …

Hill v. Butterworth, No. 97-2192 (11th Cir.) (133 F.3d 783) (December 15, 1997) (Judge Joseph Woodrow Hatchett) by Case explored the six requirements that must exist before a state is eligible to qualify for the truncated review provisions of the "op-in" provisions of the AEDPA.

Satcher v. Netherland, No. Civ. No. 3:95cv261 (E.D.Va.) (944 F.Supp. 1222) (October 8, 1996) (Judge Robert E. Payne) by Case reviews the "opt-in" provisions that enable States to qualify for truncated review of habeas corpus cases.

Mata v. Johnson, No. 96-20218 (5th Cir.) (99 F.3d 1261) (January 31, 1996) (Judge Jacques L. Jr. Wiener) by This is another case that reviews the tightening noose on appeals in capital cases, particularly due to the provisions of the recent Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). One of …

Ashmus v. Calderon, No. C 96-1533 (TEH) (N.D.Cal.) (935 F.Supp. 1048) (June 14, 1996) (Judge Thelton E. Henderson) by In this case Judge Henderson held that California's mechanism for appointment and compensation of competent counsel were objectively deficient and therefore the expedited review provisions of the AEPDA did not apply. …