Execution Made Easy

THE NATION’S HIGHEST COURT SHOWED LITTLE SYMpathy last week for Jose Tamayo- Reyes, a Cuban refugee accused of a barroom murder in Oregon. Tamayo-Reyes, who speaks little English, pleaded no contest in 1984 to manslaughter, but he later argued that a bad Spanish translation caused him to misunderstand what he was doing. After his lawyer erred by neglecting to present these crucial facts to an Oregon state appeals court, Tamayo-Reyes sought help from the federal court system, which has long heard legal appeals from state prisoners through a process known as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

But last week, in a far-reaching decision likely to hasten the execution of many death row inmates, the high court narrowed the ability of state prisoners to challenge the constitutionality of their convictions or sentences. The Justices ruled that federal courts are no longer obligated to grant a hearing on these appeals, even if the inmate can show that his lawyer failed to present important facts. This ruling seriously weakens an important aspect of habeas corpus (Latin for “you should have the body”) law, long a prime target of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Such a change in habeas corpus law, frequently used as protection for people on death row, may allow states to carry out the death penalty more swiftly by avoiding postponements on appeal — and raises the risk that new, exonerating evidence will never be heard in court before the switch is pulled. (See cover stories beginning on page 28)