<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Habeas for the Twenty-First Century: Uses, Abuses, and the Future of the Great Writ,  habeas corpus book</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.habeasbook.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.habeasbook.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:13:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Court drops a bombshell in Martinez v. Ryan</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2012/03/court-drops-a-bombshell-in-martinez/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2012/03/court-drops-a-bombshell-in-martinez/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nancy King</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capital Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conversations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ineffective Assistance of Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review of Federal Criminal Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review of State Criminal Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a 7:2 decision today, the Court in Martinez v. Ryan held that ineffective assistance of counsel during state post conviction proceedings can be cause for excusing procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The Court originally agreed to consider whether a prisoner who claims that he was denied the effective assistance &#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2012/03/court-drops-a-bombshell-in-martinez/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Greene v. Fisher: law when state court decides is what matters</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/11/greene-v-fisher-law-when-state-court-decides-is-what-matters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/11/greene-v-fisher-law-when-state-court-decides-is-what-matters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:45:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nancy King</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review of State Criminal Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=342</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Court, reminded us today in Greene that the purpose of AEDPA is to ensure that federal habeas relief functions as a &#8220;‘guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,’&#8221; and not as a means of error correction. (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip &#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/11/greene-v-fisher-law-when-state-court-decides-is-what-matters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Debating cause and prejudice in Maples</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/10/debating-cause-and-prejudice-in-maples/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/10/debating-cause-and-prejudice-in-maples/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:14:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nancy King</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capital Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conversations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ineffective Assistance of Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Presently over on SCOTUSblog there is a conversation about some of the issues raised in the Maples case argued yesterday in the Supreme Court.  Unlike many commentators, I am not confident the Court will be ruling in the petitioner&#8217;s favor in Maples.  Even if a majority of justices does decide to grant some sort of relief in Maples, a remand &#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/10/debating-cause-and-prejudice-in-maples/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Martinez v. Ryan &#8211; is there right to counsel in state pcr for IAC claim?</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/06/martinez-v-ryan-is-there-right-to-counsel-in-state-pcr-for-iac-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/06/martinez-v-ryan-is-there-right-to-counsel-in-state-pcr-for-iac-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nancy King</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ineffective Assistance of Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review of State Criminal Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[  In Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-1001, the Supreme Court today agreed to consider the following question:  &#8221;Does a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first post-conviction &#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/06/martinez-v-ryan-is-there-right-to-counsel-in-state-pcr-for-iac-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>En banc 9th and 11th Circuits debate proper role of habeas in criminal cases</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/en-banc-9th-and-11th-circuits-debate-proper-role-of-habeas-in-criminal-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/en-banc-9th-and-11th-circuits-debate-proper-role-of-habeas-in-criminal-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 19:52:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Hoffmann</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review of State Criminal Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In our book, we argue that the primary purpose of habeas has never been case-specific error correction; instead, it’s about addressing the structural and institutional problems that produce such errors. And given its own structural limitations, habeas can’t serve as an effective mechanism for either correcting or preventing case-specific errors in criminal cases anyway. That’s &#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/en-banc-9th-and-11th-circuits-debate-proper-role-of-habeas-in-criminal-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barring use of 2241 for sentencing challenge not suspension, 11th Circuit holds</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/barring-use-of-2241-for-sentencing-challenge-not-suspension-11th-circuit-holds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/barring-use-of-2241-for-sentencing-challenge-not-suspension-11th-circuit-holds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 23:22:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nancy King</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review of Federal Criminal Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review of State Criminal Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=285</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today in Gilbert v. United States the Eleventh Circuit in a divided en banc decision held that a federal prisoner who had previously filed an application for relief under Section 2255 could not use the &#8220;savings clause&#8221; to raise in a later habeas petition under Section 2241 his claim that he was erroneously sentenced as a career offender.    The majority &#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/barring-use-of-2241-for-sentencing-challenge-not-suspension-11th-circuit-holds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Video of panel discussion: Barry Friedman, Judge William Pryor, Jr., discuss book</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/video-of-panel-discussion-barry-friedman-judge-william-pryor-jr-discuss-book/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/video-of-panel-discussion-barry-friedman-judge-william-pryor-jr-discuss-book/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nancy King</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conversations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A link to a video recording of a panel discussion of the book  is now available.  On the video, Professor King summarizes the book (10 m), followed by critique from Professor Barry Friedman (about 20 m) and Hon. William Pryor, Jr. (about 20 m) , and brief comments from Professor Hoffmann. Barry Friedman is Vice Dean and  Jacob &#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/video-of-panel-discussion-barry-friedman-judge-william-pryor-jr-discuss-book/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Controversy over mitigation -3rd Circuit sets aside Mumia Abu-Jamal’s death sentence; Supreme Court reverses 6th Circuit in Bobby v. Mitts</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/controversy-over-mitigation-3rd-circuit-sets-aside-mumia-abu-jamal%e2%80%99s-death-sentence-supreme-court-reverses-6th-circuit-in-bobby-v-mitts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/controversy-over-mitigation-3rd-circuit-sets-aside-mumia-abu-jamal%e2%80%99s-death-sentence-supreme-court-reverses-6th-circuit-in-bobby-v-mitts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2011 22:16:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Hoffmann</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capital Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Within the past week, decisions were rendered in two prominent death penalty habeas corpus cases involving challenges to jury instructions and verdict forms dealing with mitigating evidence and mitigating factors:  the Mumia Abu-Jamal case in Pennsylvania and the Harry Mitts case in Ohio.  The two decisions seem unlikely to settle the controversy over mitigation that &#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/05/controversy-over-mitigation-3rd-circuit-sets-aside-mumia-abu-jamal%e2%80%99s-death-sentence-supreme-court-reverses-6th-circuit-in-bobby-v-mitts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>At Huffingtonpost, more discussion</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/04/today-at-huffingtonpost-more-discussion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/04/today-at-huffingtonpost-more-discussion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:01:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nancy King</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conversations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ineffective Assistance of Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Innocence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review of State Criminal Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=266</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Andrea Lyon&#8217;s post on our Op Ed, along with my reply, at huffingtonpost.com today, is here.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/04/today-at-huffingtonpost-more-discussion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters re: Hoffmann &amp; King NYT Op Ed Cling to Misconceptions</title>
		<link>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/04/letters-re-hoffmann-king-nyt-op-ed-cling-to-misconceptions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/04/letters-re-hoffmann-king-nyt-op-ed-cling-to-misconceptions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nancy King</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conversations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Innocence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review of State Criminal Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.habeasbook.com/?p=250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times has just posted a number of letters to the editor to be published in tomorrow’s Sunday paper, responding to our Op Ed last weekend. Most of the concerns expressed in the letters are based on myths about habeas review that don&#8217;t stand up to scrutiny.  Federal habeas corpus is not functioning, and cannot &#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.habeasbook.com/2011/04/letters-re-hoffmann-king-nyt-op-ed-cling-to-misconceptions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

