Supreme Court Oral Arguments [23-1345] Rivers v. Guerrero
6 snips
Mar 31, 2025 Join Peter A. Bruland, an advocate for Danny Rivers, and Aaron L. Nielson, representing Eric Guerrero, as they dive into the complexities of the Rivers v. Guerrero case. They explore the implications of newly discovered evidence in habeas corpus appeals, discussing how the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act complicates the legal landscape. The conversation highlights the distinction between amending petitions and submitting successive ones, revealing the procedural hurdles petitioners face. Tune in for an insightful look into legal intricacies and barriers in seeking justice.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Defining "Second or Successive" Habeas
- Congress did not intend to treat all second habeas filings during an ongoing appeal as "second or successive" under AEDPA.
- Historically, mid-appeal amendments were considered part of the first habeas proceeding, not successive petitions.
Procedural Venue for New Habeas Claims
- Mid-appeal habeas filings naturally occur when prisoners find new evidence, requiring procedural clarity on who decides first.
- This is fundamentally a venue question about whether district courts or courts of appeals should initially consider such filings.
Procedural Steps For Mid-Appeal Habeas Amendments
- Petitioners seeking to amend habeas claims mid-appeal must convince district courts to issue indicative rulings to refer matters.
- The appeals court then decides whether to remand, effectively controlling gatekeeping to prevent frivolous filings.