Abstract
This article compares the extent to which the courts require accurate predictions concerning developments in constitutional law in three contexts: the qualified immunity defense in section 1983 cases; the rules governing procedural defaults in habeas cases; and the retroactive application of new Supreme Court rulings on habeas. The article analyzes the relevant case law and concludes that courts apply very different standards in these cases. Public officials and state court judges are readily forgiven for erroneous interpretations of constitutional norms, while prisoners and their attorneys are held to a much higher standard. The article suggests that the courts should not apply such disparate standards in these three areas, but should instead require in each case that the actor have acted reasonably for one in similar circumstances.
How to Cite
33 Ariz. L. Rev. 115 (1991)
2
Views
3
Downloads