This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S22-Policy-NCFCA-49-NEG-2255.docx |
File Size | 51.50 KB |
Date added | February 21, 2022 |
Category | Policy (NCFCA) |
Author | Vance Trefethen |
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policies regarding convicted prisoners under federal jurisdiction
Case Summary: The AFF plan repeals the 1-year time limit for a prisoner to file a “2255 Motion,” named after section 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code. This would have the effect of making it easier for prisoners to file more appeals after conviction. The 1-year time limit was enacted in 1996 as part of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Definition:
“After a judge hands down a decision, the defendant may still be able to challenge their conviction or prison sentence. Through filing a 2255 motion, a defendant can move to have their sentence vacated, conviction vacated, or request a resentencing. Under federal code 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner who claims the right to be released on the grounds that their prison sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution, the court did not have the authority to impose such a sentence, or the sentence was unlawfully excessive, may file a motion to set aside or correct the sentence.” https://www.carmichaellegal.com/2255-motions
“Habeas Corpus” is a constitutional protection in Article I Section 9 that says the government cannot imprison someone without proper legal proceedings (and doing it would be “suspending” Habeas Corpus) except in cases of invasion or rebellion. Federal prisoners in this case would be filing an appeal claiming that the criminal trial or plea bargain they were given was illegal or unconstitutional in some sense, and therefore their continued imprisonment is wrong. A “suspension” of Habeas Corpus would be (according to the Affirmative) the 1 year time limit, after which the prisoner no longer has a right to file a Habeas Corpus to claim that his imprisonment is wrong. After 1 year, his Habeas Corpus rights have been suspended or lost.
NEG will argue that the 2255 time limit doesn’t constitute a suspension of Habeas Corpus and isn’t a problem. There are plenty of exceptions to the time limit for 2255, and they can also use Section 2241 if 2255 isn’t sufficient.
“Statute of limitations” is a time limit on when a legal proceeding can be initiated. That’s the 1-year limit that Congress enacted in 1996. “Equitable Tolling”: “Tolling” means counting the time elapsed toward the statute of limitations time limit. Time may start “tolling” for example, the day the prisoner is convicted, or the day he is sentenced. “Equitable Tolling” means the court will adjust its enforcement of the “tolling” of time in order to achieve “equity” (fairness) for special circumstances. They’ll suspend enforcement of the time and give the prisoner a break if there were good reasons he couldn’t file his claim within 1 year.