AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY BE EQUITABLY TOLLED

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the one year statute of limitations to file for post conviction relief, under AEDPA, may be equitably tolled under certain circumstances. In Holland v. Florida, the Court held that the one year statute may be tolled if a petitioner "...shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way...of timely filing."

The matter has been remanded to the District Court to determine if the Defendant's petition, which was five weeks late, should be permitted.

U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CRIMINAL CONVICTION

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a Michigan Defendant. In Renico v. Lett, the Court held that jeopardy did not attach when a Trial Judge dismissed a deadlocked jury; the Judge had found the jury to have sufficiently deliberated.

In this holding, the Supreme Court made clear that no bright line rule will be adopted in determining whether a jury has sufficiently deliberated before declaring a mistrial. The Court also held that the Michigan Supreme Court's original denial of relief, which was overturned by the Sixth Circuit, was not an unreasonable application of federal law. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit erred in granted relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254.

COUNSEL MUST ADVISE DEFENDANTS OF IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that criminal defense attorneys must advise a Defendant of the immigration consequences that sometimes attach to a guilty plea. In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Court held that a Defendant may claim that ineffective assistance of counsel was provided to him. Padilla (a non-citizen) claims that Counsel did not inform him that he could possibly be deported.

This case will now be remanded for further fact finding.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS MURDER CONVICTION

The Supreme Court has upheld a murder conviction. In Wood v. Allen, the Court held that it was not ineffective for trial attorneys to ignore a possible defense of cognitive deficiencies when the attorneys were in possession of a report that cast doubt as to whether such deficiencies actually limited the Defendant's functioning.

In so ruling, the Court stressed that an ineffective assistance claim cannot prevail when a trial attorney is employing reasonable strategy. Given that such has been the law for years, it is surprising that the Court would take up this issue; the Court likely only took this issue as the Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed the District Court's upholding of the conviction.

Justices Stevens and Kennedy were the only dissenters.