<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Habeas Corpus</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/judicial-power/habeas-corpus/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>Baldwin v. Reese</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;A state trial court sentenced Reese to 33 years in prison. An appellate court lowered the sentence to 24 years. In another appeal to a state appellate court, Reese argued his federal Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was violated at trial and on appeal. The appellate court refused to reverse Reese's sentence. Reese appealed to the state supreme court and failed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reese appealed to a U.S. District Court. Ruling against Reese, the Court held that Reese did clearly say to the state supreme court his claims were federal. Federal law requires state prisoners to "fairly present" federal constitutional claims in each state court before appealing to federal courts. A federal appellate court reversed, ruling that the state supreme court had had the opportunity to read the state appellate court decision - had the court done this, it would have understood Reese's claims were federal.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_964/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Bell v. Cone</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;In 1984 a Tennessee court sentenced Cone to death for murder. The jury had found four aggravating circumstances, one of which was that the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel." Cone's state appeals were unsuccessful. A federal district court then rejected Cone's habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling in Bell v. Cone (2002). On remand, the Sixth Circuit again reversed Cone's sentence on the ground that the "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravator was unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendment.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_394/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Granberry v. Greer</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_6790/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Irvin v. Dowd</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_63/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
