On The Front Lines
The Rutherford Institute Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Protect Constitutional Right to Habeas Corpus in Gonzalez v. Thaler
Institute Attorneys Argue Long-Standing Right Is Being Endangered by Bureaucracy
WASHINGTON, DC — Citing the concern that bureaucratic and clerical technicalities threaten to undermine the constitutional right of all Americans to a speedy trial, The Rutherford Institute has filed a "friend of the court" brief in the United States Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Thaler. Institute attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that a federal court's procedural error not be permitted to stand in the way of a prisoner's ability to obtain a habeas corpus review of his claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate requiring that a prisoner be brought before the court to determine whether the government has the right to continue detaining them. The individual being held or their representative can petition the court for such a writ.
The Institute's amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Thaler is available here.
"The writ of Habeas Corpus is of such importance that all other rights, including those in the Bill of Rights, depend upon it," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "To deny the Great Writ over a technicality, no less, as is being done in this case, is an affront to freedom itself."
Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez was tried for murder in July 2005, ten years after the State of Texas returned an indictment against him. At trial, Gonzalez moved to dismiss the charge on the basis that the inordinate delay in prosecuting him severely prejudiced his ability to investigate the charges and mount a defense, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. However, his claim was denied and he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
After exhausting all state remedies available to challenge the conviction, Gonzalez invoked his right under federal law to seek a writ of habeas corpus and have a federal court review the constitutionality of his conviction. Although Gonzalez showed that state law enforcement was responsible for the delay in bringing the prosecution and that his defense was prejudiced because the state's case depended upon the memory of witnesses, the federal district court denied his application for a writ, ruling that Gonzalez filed his federal court application too late under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
Gonzalez then sought a certificate of appealability from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, reasserting that his right to a speedy trial had been violated and asking that he be allowed to appeal the district court's ruling because that court committed a legal error in ruling the application was untimely. A judge of the Fifth Circuit granted Gonzalez's request but failed to include Gonzalez's Sixth Amendment claim in the certificate. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's timeliness ruling. Gonzalez then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling on the timeliness issue, and the high court agreed to hear the case.
In addition to the timeliness issue, the Supreme Court will also review whether the omission from the certificate of appealability of a specific constitutional issue, as required by the AEDPA, deprived the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review Gonzalez's case. In filing an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that "[t]echnicalities should not stand in the way of persons from obtaining review of substantial claims that their right to life and liberty have been unconstitutionally compromised."
