Habeas Corpus: Unresolved Standard of Review on Mixed Questions for State Prisoners
James Basta · The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) · 1993
Justice Thomas opined that the de novo review rule is not settled and that the Court should defer to the state court on mixed questions, following the recent trend demonstrated in Teague v. Lane" to narrow federal court review of state court decisions. 9 Justice White found that there was sufficient evidence to convict the prisoner.He applied the Jackson test but did not join in the standard of review discussion.' 0Justice O'Connor, with Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens, found that there was sufficient evidence to convict the prisoner based on the Jackson test.'"Justice O'Connor disagreed with Justice Thomas's analysis of habeas corpus, however, and defended the Court's decisions, which established federal court de novo review of mixed questions. 12 Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment, denying the petition for habeas corpus, but objected to Justice Thomas's reliance on Teague as a method of narrowing the review standard since that case did not establish a new standard of review for mixed questions in federal habeas corpus cases of state prisoners. 13 Justice Souter agreed with the judgment of the Court.He denied review of the case either de novo or deferentially on the ground that the petitioner relied on the retroactive application of a new rule. 14 This Note begins with a brief review of habeas corpus and examines the standard of review of mixed questions, noting the constitutional law of insufficient evidence claims.Next, the five opinions of West are considered.Finally, this Note argues that West was an inappropriate case for the Court to attempt to overturn the standard of review for mixed questions in habeas corpus and that the underlying issues necessary to properly answer the standard of review question were not fully debated.