The writ of habeas corpus has been used in various ways in the United States and other countries.
An example of a petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. occurred in the 2009 case Knowles v. Mirzayance. Mirzayance had been accused of murder and had pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI); however, his legal counsel dissuaded him from pursuing the NGI plea, and he was found guilty. He then applied for federal habeas corpus relief, which was granted on the basis that his legal counsel did him a disservice by talking him out of the NGI plea because he had ''nothing to lose'' in pursuing it. The court also reasoned that, given the chance to go forward, the jury may have found Mirzayance not guilty. This case shows how habeas corpus can be used to help those who have not been given a fair trial.
In contrast, habeas corpus has historically had a different meaning and use in England. In the early 1600s, the Great Writ was used differently in both the King's court and the Chancery than in the United States. The writ was used for executive detention and for freeing those who were put in prison for contempt of orders according to the authority of the King's Bench. It was used to not only completely free prisoners from confinement but also prevent the King's Bench from enforcing any related judgments. Following the Earl of Oxford's case in 1615, King James I established the precedence of equity over common law, which put an end to the Great Writ as it was known because it had not been fairly applied in the past. Habeas corpus was re-established by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which allowed for the release of prisoners detained unlawfully, similar to the later laws of the U.S. Though this act has been temporarily suspended several times since its enactment, it is still in use today.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Habeas corpus was first implemented in U.S. law through the First Judiciary Act of 1789, in which the federal courts were authorized to grant habeas corpus relief only to federal prisoners. This was later expanded after the Civil War through the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, which granted the right to habeas corpus relief to state prisoners if their imprisonment violated federal law. Following World War II, the writ was further expanded through the application of the Bill of Rights to states; this gave defendants greater opportunity to assert their civil rights in the event of unlawful state actions.
The application of habeas corpus was narrowed in 1996 following the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This act introduced a one-year statute of limitations for habeas petitions, barred petitioners from filing successive petitions, and limited habeas relief to situations in which the state court's determination was contrary to federal law or unreasonably applied. The writ was further narrowed by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), which prevented prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay from accessing the federal courts through habeas corpus. Instead, these acts forced these prisoners to go through military commissions and then submit their appeals to the D.C. Circuit court.
Key Habeas Corpus U.S. Court Cases
Habeas corpus has been shaped by congressional action and through court decisions. Cases such as those below have helped establish the precedent that guides the use of habeas corpus today.
- Brown v. Allen (1953): In this case, Allen applied for habeas corpus on the basis that his conviction violated his rights due to discrimination in the selection of jurors. The courts denied this appeal on the basis that no constitutional rights were violated. This case established that habeas corpus relief cannot be granted when an accusation of mistrial cannot be clearly supported.
- Howes v. Fields (2012): In this case, Fields was found guilty of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct against a minor. He had been imprisoned because of an unrelated disorderly conduct charge and was questioned during his imprisonment. Statements from this questioning led to his conviction in the criminal sexual conduct trial, but Fields argued that these statements should have been considered inadmissible because he was not given his Miranda warnings before questioning, which constituted a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. On this basis, he filed for habeas corpus relief. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where six justices ruled in favor of Howes, stating that there were not yet clearly established rules regarding Miranda warnings in custody and the warden therefore did not violate Fields's rights. This case established that habeas corpus relief cannot be granted in cases with no clear violation of rights.
- New Jersey v. Rubin Carter: Prior to this case, Carter had been convicted of murder and received three life sentences. He and another defendant had been accused of murdering two people in New Jersey, despite little evidence to support their guilt. Carter argued that the jury in the previous trial had not properly considered the evidence and that a mistrial had occurred, leading to his pursuit of habeas corpus relief. The U.S. District Court granted the writ and later overturned his conviction on the basis that it had been decided based on race. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. This case established a clear-cut situation in which habeas corpus can be used to correct a violation of rights.
U.S. Constitution Habeas Corpus Amendments
The writ of habeas corpus interacts differently with several U.S. constitutional amendments. For example, if an individual wants to submit a habeas corpus appeal under the rights granted by the Fourth Amendment (to no illegal search and seizure), it will be denied if the state court had already provided the opportunity for a Fourth Amendment claim during the litigation. The Fifth Amendment is also often referenced when a habeas corpus appeal is submitted as it protects the right to remain silent or to due process of law. Similarly, habeas corpus is often pursued on the grounds of a violation of the Sixth Amendment, or failure to grant the right to a speedy trial. The Eighth Amendment directly ties into habeas corpus as well as it prohibits excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
The writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a U.S. legal process that determines whether an offender's imprisonment is valid. It was written into law by the First Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized federal courts to grant habeas corpus relief to federal prisoners. This was later expanded upon by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, which granted the right of habeas corpus to state prisoners whose imprisonment violated federal laws. The writ of habeas corpus has been shaped by court precedent, such as in the case of New Jersey v. Rubin Carter, which established that habeas corpus can be granted when convictions are decided based on race. The Great Writ is applicable to many constitutional amendments, particularly the Fifth Amendment, which grants the right to due process of law.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Video Transcript
Definition of Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus is a petition that can be filed by a person in custody to the court regarding the circ*mstances of detainment. A detainee can file habeas corpus if he thinks his rights have been violated or there were factual errors surrounding the arrest and detainment, such as a wrong date of arrest, the wrong charges listed on the booking sheet, or the wrong birth date of the offender. Habeas corpus is also called the 'Great Writ.' The Latin meaning for habeas corpus is 'you shall have the body.'
Example of Habeas Corpus
After hearing a disturbance at a neighbor's home, you call the police and report the disturbance. As you peer out your window, you see your neighbor, John, being escorted to a police car. The police officers take John to the department for questioning. John answers questions about the disturbance and admits he had hit his wife. The officers then arrest John for domestic violence. John is held until sentencing for 30 days.
While in jail, he realizes he is being improperly detained, because he was never read his Miranda rights, nor was he made aware that he did not have to answer the questions the officers had asked him. John files a petition for a habeas corpus against the officers who detained him. John asks the federal courts to review the practices of the officers and the process that they used to detain and arrest him.
History of Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus was initially part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, but it only allowed for federal prisoners to file petitions, and only if they were questioning the competence of the court. In 1867, the writ of habeas corpus was expanded by Congress in two ways: it allowed state-held prisoners to file, and it also allowed both federal and state detainees to file if they felt their detainment was illegal, rather than just if they were questioning the competence of the court.
Through the years, there have been changes made to habeas corpus. In 1915, it was expanded, and the terms were no longer restricted to violation of due process in the courts. Detainees and prisoners could file habeas corpus if they felt they were being detained under false pretenses, if there were mistakes with arrest paperwork, or the arresting officer arrested them because of evidence that was planted. Prior to 1963, state detainees were required to exhaust all of the resources available to them through the state, such as public defenders and the appeal system, before they filed habeas corpus with the federal courts. In 1963, this requirement was lifted, allowing them to file with the federal courts. Another change came with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which stated that detainees at Guantanamo Bay and members of the military are not entitled to habeas corpus but must go through the military proceedings.
Detainee and Inmate's Rights
Habeas corpus is associated with several amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth. If a detainee or inmate feels that his constitutional rights in the preceding amendments have been violated, he can file habeas corpus.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, which includes an arrest. In the opening example, John felt he was being detained (seized) wrongfully, because he was not read his Miranda Rights. An inmate has the ability to file a habeas corpus if he or she feels the arrest, search, or seizure was conducted inappropriately. The right to due process is part of the Fifth Amendment. If there was a trial and the offender feels that the jury was biased, the judge had prejudices, or the lawyer did not give the best possible advice, then the inmate can file a habeas corpus on the grounds that she did not have due process. In the Sixth Amendment, the inmate has the right to a speedy and fair trial. The inmate can file a habeas corpus if he or she has factual information that he or she is not getting a speedy or fair trial. The Eighth Amendment does not allow excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment. If a prisoner feels that either of these rules has been violated, he can file habeas corpus.
Examples of Habeas Corpus
Each of the following is an example of a case that involved habeas corpus.
Brown v. Allen, 1953: This case set a precedent for state detainees and prisoners, allowing them to petition the federal courts to review their cases when they had been denied habeas corpus by the state courts. This was not allowed prior to Brown v. Allen.
Howes v. Fields, 2011: This was a case similar to the opening example. Randall Fields was found guilty in this case, but he felt he was detained improperly because he was not read his Miranda Rights. This case is an example of how a person detained or arrested can file habeas corpus on the grounds of unlawful detainment.
In New Jersey v. Rubin Carter, 1985, Rubin Carter was granted habeas corpus on the basis of not having been given a fair trial. His conviction of murder was implied because of his race, rather than based on factual evidence relating to the crimes.
Lesson Summary
When a person in custody feels he or she is being detained illegally or there were factual errors in the detainment, the inmate can file a petition of habeas corpus, also known as 'Great Writ.' This is a formal procedure that is in place for prisoners to request reviews. After the prisoner files the petition, the courts are able to review the file and decide if the prisoner is in fact being held illegally. Habeas corpus was initially part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 in the United States but was expanded in scope and became available to state prisoners in 1867. There are several important case examples that outline why or how inmates can file habeas corpus. There are several amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including the Fourth (no searches without warrants), Fifth (the right to due process), Sixth (a speedy and fair trial), and Eighth (no cruel and unusual punishment) amendments that, if violated, can be grounds for filing habeas corpus.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
