Mark Christeson was executed with no federal habeas corpus review because attorneys appointed to represent him did not file a petition for writ of habeas corpus within the federal one-year limitations period. This article recounts the failures and the heroic but unsuccessful efforts to correct them.
This essay examines Missouri’s recent history of executions and calls for a systemic examination of the operation of Missouri’s capital sentencing practices, particularly in light of the restrictions on federal review imposed by AEDPA.
This paper makes the case that a real-world examination of how a capital sentencing statute operates is the proper inquiry into whether that statute “narrows” the pool of persons eligible for a sentence of death, as required by the Eighth Amendment.
Prosecutorial narratives about women and LGBTQ persons facing a sentence of death often invoke pernicious stereotypes, asking juries to sentence a person to death for who they are, rather than what they’ve done. This article proposes a jurisprudence focused on the harm to the individual, rather than whether the bias infected the entirety of the proceedings.
The Hofstra Law Review, under the guidance of Professor Eric Freedman, is at the forefront of developing scholarship supporting the ongoing work of the capital trial, appeal, postconviction, and habeas community. When the ABA has updated or supplemented its Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, the Hofstra Law Review assembles the best of the best litigators and scholars to help the capital defense community implement these standards in their practice.