Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNelsen, Stephen H.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-14T01:08:28Z
dc.date.available2013-02-14T01:08:28Z
dc.date.issued1975en_US
dc.identifier.citation8 Creighton L. Rev. 541 (1974-1975)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/38842
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|The purpose of habeas corpus is to afford relief from imprisonment that is the result of a denial of due process of law. An impediment to establishing a right to habeas corpus relief is the possibility that the rights a petitioner claims have been violated were waived at some stage in the judicial process. The seminal standard for determining the validity of a waiver was presented in the United States Supreme Court decision, Fay I v. Noia: The classic definition of waiver enunciated in Johnson v. Zerbst [citation omitted]-"an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege"- furnishes the controlling standard. At all events we wish it clearly understood that the standard here put forth depends on the considered choice of the petitioner. [Footnote omitted.] The recent Fifth Circuit case Winters v. Cook applied two separate qualifications to the Fay-Zerbst general rule of general waiver: waiver by counsel and waiver by guilty plea. This case note will examine the application of these two qualifications and their effect on the availability of habeas corpus relief...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleHabeas Corpus - The Fifth Circuit Considers the Effects of Waiver on Habeas Corpus Availability - Winters v. Cook, 489 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1973)en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume8en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1974-1975en_US
dc.description.pages541en_US
dc.contributor.cuauthorFiroz, Muhammaden_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record