Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 14 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14

Cite as: 538 U. S. 202 (2003)

Souter, J., dissenting

a case that might be hopeless under the later, more restrictive, law; or conversely, would be forcing counsel to stint on responsible preparation, in order to assure that a petition subject to the earlier law be filed before AEDPA's general effective date. I would therefore hold that the earlier version of § 2254 should apply throughout a habeas proceeding if the habeas court that issued a § 2251 stay took its preliminary look at the prospects for habeas success prior to AEDPA's effective date.

In this case, that first look occurred six months before the amendment's effective date, and I would accordingly hold the pre-AEDPA law applicable here. I respectfully dissent.

215

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14

Last modified: October 4, 2007