Site Meter

Kovarsky on Martinez and the Roberts Post-Conviction Project

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. pc says:

    How does this work with AEDPA deference? Say a state only provides counsel if the pro se petitioner can state an arguable claim of ineffectiveness; the petition is put before the court and denied summarily because the trial court believes the claim is obviously without merit. (assme the claim could be substantiated if counsel were appointed). Petitioner then goes to federal court. Under Martinez, the State can’t argue that the claim was defaulted, but could they argue that the trial court’s summary dismissal was a merits determination entitled to deference? And would the deferential review be limited to the (undeveloped) record before the trial court? Maybe it is per se unreasonable for the trial court to determine the “merits” of a claim in the absence of factual development.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image