The USA PATRIOT act is probably the broadest violation of civil liberties that has been put in legislative form, however, even as we continue to fight the PATRIOT act and the abuses that are ocurring under it, we should not forget that there are other pieces of legislation that require our attention. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was signed into law by President Clinton. The AEDPA limits the circumstances in which a prisoner can appeal to a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus. A prisoner has one shot--after which they can only have subsequent appeals for writs of habeas corpus at the discretion of the state court of appeals.

While I certainly appreciate the desire to move cases along and unclog the court system by stopping abuse of the habeus corpus process, it leaves legitamate complaints without a forum to be heard. One such case is that of James Rodwell in Massachusetts.

James Rodwell has been in prison since 1981, sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Louis Rose, Jr. No eyewitnesses placed Rodwell at the scene, no weapon was recovered, the motive offered by the prosecution was of highly questionable merit, and no fingerprints or any other forensic evidence placed Rodwell at the scene or in any other way linked him to the murder.

Rodwell was convicted on the strength of two witness's words: Frankie Holmes and David Nagle. At the time, Holmes was facing a significant amount of jail time for hijacking a truck in Rhode Island and bringing it across state lines into Massachusetts, and worse, he was already on parole. Gee--I can't see any reason why he would want to cut a deal with prosecutors, can you? His get out of jail free card was to claim that he watched Rodwell kill Rose and then steal drugs off of Rose's corpse. David Nagle was a jailhouse stoolie--a police informant--who claimed that while at the Billerica House of Corrections, he heard Rodwell brag that he killed Rose. Of course, Nagle was facing six counts of armed robbery at the time, in two counties. Gee--I can't see any reason why he would want to cut a deal with the prosecutors, can you?

The Middlesex County District Attorney's office failed to turn over the Holmes's and Nagel's probation records to the defense attorney as well as failing to turn over their complete criminal histories. In particular, Nagle was charged with 45 crimes in 10 years, most of them violent felonies, but the jury only heard about 12 of them. The prosecution also failed to tell the jury that Nagle was a police informant and the judge didn't allow the defense to bring it up.

There are other reasons why this case reeks of corruption, but you can read them for yourself at: http://www.angelfire.com/pro/rodwell/index.html More saliently is how does the AEDPA affect Rodwell's case?

Rodwell filed several appeals in the State court system, none of them successful. After he exhausted his state remedies, he sought a writ of habeas corpus from the US District Court. He was turned down because some of the evidence he presented to the US District Court had not been presented to the state court.

Rodwell went back and filed three more appeals in the State courts, all of them denied, and went back to the federal court, but at this point, the AEDPA was in effect. Remember, it bars 2nd habeas corpus petitions? His petition for permission for a 2nd habeas corpus petition was denied, and thanks to the AEDPA, he has no further remedies.

To quote from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, in which Judges Selya, Stahl, and Lynch determined that Rodwell's appeal was barred by the AEDPA, "We acknowledge that, despite the petitioner's numerous attempts to expose the full extent of the relationship between Nagle and the state prosecutor, no court has exhaustively addressed that claim. Some of these lost opportunities may fairly be attributed to procedural errors on the petitioner's part. Others, however, are linked to the stringent filters that channel consideration of habeas corpus claims under the AEDPA. This regimen, though harsh, dovetails with Congress's intent. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-23 (1995), 1995 WL 56412, at *8 (explaining that the AEDPA is "designed to curb the abuse of the habeas corpus process, and particularly to address the problem of delay and repetitive litigation"). Section 2244(b)(3) establishes a rigorous gatekeeping arrangement through which second or successive habeas applications must pass, and it was the petitioner's inability to open that gate that kept the district court from probing more deeply into the circumstances surrounding Nagle's testimony. This may seem overly restrictive -- but any complaint about the inadequacy of the mechanisms available for judicial review in habeas cases ordinarily must be addressed to the Congress, not to the courts. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 (1996) (recognizing that "judgments about the proper scope of the [habeas] writ are normally for Congress to make"); see also United States v. Victoria-Peguero, 920 F.2d 77, 81 (1st Cir. 1990) (stating this court's resolve to refrain from "substitut[ing] judicial judgment for legislative judgment or . . . plac[ing] limitations on [statutory language] which were not envisioned by Congress")." (from http://www.angelfire.com/pro/rodwell/usca1opinion2003.html)

Even the judges at the First Circuit acknowledge that Rodwell has a claim that has never been fairly examined, but they wash their hands of it due to the limitations of the AEDPA.

Rodwell's story serves a cautionary note--first, that we should not solely look at post-September 11 civil liberties violations and forget that there are earlier civil liberties violations that are still ongoing. Second, that we cannot and must not stop legitimate claims from being heard in an attempt to cut back on fradulent or frivilous claims.