English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In the years ahead both the state and federal governments will have a shared interest in improving the fairness of state post-conviction review systems. Under Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) states9 post-conviction rulings will be given considerable deference on federal habeas corpus review if but only if they emerge from procedurally sound systems. This gives the states a finality interest and the federal government a cost-savings interest in the creation of such systems. At the same time unsound systems are increasingly vulnerable to attacks under Section 1983. These converging circumstances make it more desirable than ever that the states provide competent counsel in state post-conviction proceedings.

federal sentencing reporter

State Post-Conviction Remedies in the Next Fifteen Years: How Synergy Between the State and Federal Governments Can Improve the Criminal Justice System Nationally