Preclusion and Criminal Judgment

Kovarsky, Lee

Journal: Notre Dame Law Review

Volume: 92

First Page: 637

Year: 2017

Bluebook Citation: 92 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 637 (2017)

Author: Lee Kovarsky: all 16 publications


Abstract

The defining question in modern habeas corpus law involves the finality of a state conviction: What preclusive effect does (and should) a criminal judgment have? Res judicata and collateral estoppel —the famous preclusion rules for civil judgments—accommodate basic legal interests in fairness, certitude, and sovereignty. Legal institutions carefully calibrate the preclusive effect of civil judgments because judicial resources are scarce, because the reliability and legitimacy of prior process can vary, and because courts wield the authority of a repeat-playing sovereign that will find its own civil judgments attacked in foreign litigation. In stark contrast to the legal sophistication lavished on the finality of civil judgments, however, is the rudimentary treatment of preclusion rules in criminal cases. Nowhere is such treatment more mischievous than in modern habeas corpus law.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.