Beard v. Kindler
Justices take long-running Pa. death penalty case (May 18, 2008)
The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the proper treatment in a federal habeas corpus proceeding of state procedural rules that are discretionary rather than mandatory.
Joseph Kindler was convicted of first degree murder in a Pennsylvania state court for killing one-time accomplice David Bernstein in 1982. He was subsequently sentenced to death. Kindler filed motions for post-conviction relief, but while the motions were pending, he escaped from prison to Canada.
Pennsylvania immediately moved to dismiss the motions arguing that Kindler had waived any right to have his post-conviction motions considered because he was a fugitive.
The trial court agreed and dismissed them. Soon after his arrest in Canada, he once again managed to escape. After recapture for the second time, Kindler moved to reinstate his post-conviction motions, which was denied. Both the Pennsylvania Superior Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision.
In 2000, Kindler filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The state of Pennsylvania argued that habeas corpus relief was unavailable to Kindler because Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule was an "independent and adequate" state ground that precluded federal habeas review. District Court Judge Curtis Joyner disagreed and granted the petition.
In September 2008, a three-judge panel on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Relying on its decision in Doctor v. Walters, it held that Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule was not an independent and adequate state ground that precluded federal habeas review.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., took no part in the Supreme Court's decision to review the case.
Question presented: Under the adequate-state-ground doctrine, does a state procedural rule like Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule preclude federal habeas corpus review even though the state procedural rule is discretionary?
Justices tells lower courts to reconsider death penalty for Pa. man (Dec. 8, 2009)
The Supreme Court held today that a discretionary state procedural rule can serve as an adequate ground to bar federal habeas review.
Joseph Kindler was convicted of first degree murder in a Pennsylvania state court for killing one-time accomplice David Bernstein in 1982. He was subsequently sentenced to death. Kindler filed motions for post-conviction relief, but while the motions were pending, he escaped from prison to Canada.
Pennsylvania immediately moved to dismiss the motions arguing that Kindler had waived any right to have his post-conviction motions considered because he was a fugitive.
The trial court agreed and dismissed them. Soon after his arrest in Canada, he once again managed to escape. After recapture for the second time, Kindler moved to reinstate his post-conviction motions, which was denied. Both the Pennsylvania Superior Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision.
In 2000, Kindler filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The state of Pennsylvania argued that habeas corpus relief was unavailable to Kindler because Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule was an "independent and adequate" state ground that precluded federal habeas review. District Court Judge Curtis Joyner disagreed and granted the petition.
In September 2008, a three-judge panel on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Relying on its decision in Doctor v. Walters, it held that Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule was not an independent and adequate state ground that precluded federal habeas review.
Justice Samuel Alito, who used to sit on the Philadelphia-based appeals court, did not take part in the consideration or decision in this case.
On Dec. 8, 2009, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, filed a concurring opinion.
"A state procedural rule is not automatically 'inadequate' under the adequate state ground doctrine—and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas review—because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory," Roberts wrote.
Question presented: Under the adequate-state-ground doctrine, does a state procedural rule like Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule preclude federal habeas corpus review even though the state procedural rule is discretionary?