What kind of Justice do you qualify for?
The color-coded nature of Justice
Every newsletter on MYLIFEplus25 is public and free to everyone, but we ask for your support. Please consider becoming a patron now to help fund our ongoing legal efforts that dare to speak truth to power. This isn't journalism, it's activism! And these efforts are only possible through the support of good people just like you who believe that change is possible.
Thank you and I hope you enjoy today’s post.
—
Imagine for a moment if your ability to be with loved ones, pursue worldly achievements or even sit in your favorite park to read depended upon the professional and personal integrity of an appointed federal district judge and elected state official. How confident would you feel about the likelihood of your ability to enjoy and pursue the simple pleasures of your life?
Add to this hypothetical the fact that you're a minority, English isn't your first language, and you've been wrongfully accused, charge, convicted and sentenced for a murder you did not commit or orchestrate.
Now include the fact that the legal standard that will be applied to the prospects of your life is a piece of legislation that most have never heard of called AEDPA (Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act). Something Congress passed in 1996 when crime hysteria was in the air. It's a law that does nothing to combat terrorism or make executing people more effective.
Unless, of course, by “effective” you mean easier to effectuate without the in cumbrances of the Constitution.
AEDPA creates intentional hurdles for petitioners to overcome before the federal courts can weigh in on the constitutional legitimacy of their convictions.
Historically speaking, states have a tendency to be hostile towards federal law because they prefer to dispense justice as they see fit, something that is problematic in a nation where it is imbedded in our culture that we have certain fundamental rights.
In other words, states wanted a way to continue applying constitutional rights through the color-coded system, as opposed to the “equality before the law” standard we profess.
Congress, knowing that it would face public criticism and resistance if people knew what AEDPA was really about, dressed it up as a way to combat terrorism. What this legislation did, however, was to create an opaque standard for federal review of a state’s judicial rulings as it relates to their constitutionality.
First, the law requires federal courts to give deference to decisions of the state courts. Second, even if a petitioner is able to navigate the obstacles to getting habeas relief in the federal court, the Court isn't permitted to intervene just because a state court made a ruling that was blatantly unconstitutional; said ruling must also be “unreasonable”.
Federal District Court, Albuquerque source: Flickr.com
Which brings us to my own habeas corpus petition now before the Honorable Kia W. Riggs in federal district court. The basis of which is that my trial was unconstitutional due to the fact that I wasn't able to confront my only accuser. This may sound like a technicality, or maybe some sort of ruse to beat the system, but a better understanding of the situation may convince you otherwise.