54:5 Justice Scalia Was Right: “No One Really Believes that [Martinez] Will Remain Limited to Ineffective-Assistance-of-Trial-Counsel-Cases”

Abstract

This Comment argues that there is no logical reason to limit the application of Martinez to only ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims. Extension to other nonrecord based claims, such as Brady violations, jury tampering, or ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel, is the only logical, fair, and just conclusion. The principles behind Martinez demand expansion. Part II will provide a brief overview of federal habeas and the barriers to relief that have been erected over the years by Congress and the judicial system. Part III will address the problems of ineffective-assistance-of-post-conviction-counsel and how petitioners lack means of redress. Part IV will describe the Supreme Court of the United States case Martinez v. Ryan, as well as the Court’s holding and reasoning. Part V will address how the courts have already expanded Martinez, current issues of expansion that will likely come before the Supreme Court imminently, and the future of Martinez.