Jones v. Davis

by
The State appealed the district court's grant of petitioner's habeas petition. Petitioner argued that California’s post-conviction system of judicial review creates such a long period of delay between sentencing and execution that only an “arbitrary” few prisoners actually are executed, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Under Teague v. Lane, federal courts may not consider novel constitutional theories on habeas review. The court concluded that, in this case, petitioner's claim asks the court to apply a novel constitutional rule and therefore, the claim is barred by Teague. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Jones v. Davis" on Justia Law