skip to main content
Idioma:

State Court Forfeitures of Federal Rights

Meltzer, Daniel J.

Harvard law review, 1986-04, Vol.99 (6), p.1128-1236 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Law Review Association

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    State Court Forfeitures of Federal Rights
  • Autor: Meltzer, Daniel J.
  • Assuntos: Asset forfeiture ; Common law ; Criminals ; Defendants ; Exclusive and concurrent legislative powers ; Federal courts ; Federal government ; Federal law ; Forfeiture ; Habeas corpus ; Jurisdiction ; Law ; Practice ; State courts ; State law
  • É parte de: Harvard law review, 1986-04, Vol.99 (6), p.1128-1236
  • Notas: ObjectType-Article-1
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
    content type line 23
  • Descrição: Because federal questions are often litigated in state courts, the procedures used by state courts can have a significant impact upon the vindication of federal rights. In this Article, Professor Meltzer examines the forfeiture of federal rights in state courts, which often results when litigants have failed to assert those rights in accordance with state procedural rules. He explores the content and source of two federal doctrines that limit the scope of permissible state court forfeitures - the inadequate state ground doctrine applied on Supreme Court review, and the doctrine applied by federal habeas corpus courts to excuse state court procedural defaults. Professor Meltzer concludes that these doctrines are best understood as examples of federal common law. He argues that there is ample justification for the judicial formulation of federal limits on state court forfeitures, that those limits should have the same content on direct review in the Supreme Court and on collateral review in federal habeas corpus proceedings, and that those limits should apply in the state courts themselves. Professor Meltzer then proposes particular federal standards to govern a variety of identifiable situations in which forfeitures occur. Finally, he assesses the impact of his proposal upon state courts, and their likely response to the recognition of a limited federal obligation to excuse procedural defaults.
  • Editor: Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Law Review Association
  • Idioma: Inglês
Voltar para lista de resultados

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.