Supreme Court disengagement from state criminal procedure : the case of Stone V. Powell

The purpose of this study is twofold: (l) to analyze the United States Supreme Court decision of Stone v. Powell 428 U.S. 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1067 (1976), and its place in the development of federal habeas corpus doctrine, and (2) to address the question of whether Stone v. Powell has had significant impact on the highest level of state appellate courts.

Two methods were utilized to assess the impact of Stone v. Powell First, an analysis was undertaken of some of the most important habeas corpus cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. These cases arose from the habeas corpus provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent expansions and contractions of habeas corpus jurisdiction. This case analysis has been supplemented by a review of pertinent secondary material by legal scholars and social scientists.

In addition, the research includes analysis of a survey sent to every member of the highest appellate court hearing criminal appeals in each of the fifty states. For comparison, the study includes analyses of the state appellate decisions rendered since l976 in which Stone v. Powell was cited. This comparison provides a check between what judges say, formally in their written opinions, and what they say when surveyed confidentially.

This study is important to social scientists for two reasons. First, it serves to expand the limited research done on state courts. Secondly, it provides a look at changing federal-state court relations in light of the "new federalism." The major finding of the research was that Stone v. Powell can be viewed along two dimensions: a narrow, substantive dimension of applying the case as merely a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decision, or along a broader, policy dimension of judicial federalism. Both the case analyses and the survey results revealed that state supreme courts have not moved into the criminal procedure areas vacated by the United States Supreme Court.

Although the Burger Court has opened the way for expanding influence and importance by state supreme courts, these courts have applied the Stone v. Powell decision along the narrow, substantive dimension of Fourth Amendment exclusion. Thus, state supreme courts have not assumed the position of coequal partners with the federal courts in assuring adequate and appropriate disposition of federal claims.