Abstract
Bruce Webster was convicted in 1994 of the brutal rape and murder of an underage girl, as part of an ongoing drug operation. Mr. Webster sought to overturn his death sentence under the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which forbids the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities. The issue of whether Mr. Webster is a person with intellectual disabilities was litigated at trial, and throughout the Fifth Circuit for nearly twenty years. At every level, Mr. Webster’s contention was denied, and he was transferred to the federal death chamber in Terre Haute, Indiana. Subsequently, under the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit, Mr. Webster attempted to use the little-known savings clause, 28 U.S.C. §2255(e), to test the legality of his sentence. The Seventh Circuit concluded, in a divided en banc decision, that his sentence was potentially “inadequate or ineffective” and ordered a new hearing as to the question of his mental abilities.
This Comment explains why the Seventh Circuit’s decision has far-reaching consequences beyond this case, and misconstrues the proper purpose of the savings clause. Congress should amend § 2255 to properly align with state habeas corpus procedures and the plain language of the statute. A correct application of § 2255 would also preserve the proper deference given a trial court’s determination of fact.
Recommended Citation
Jerrod H. Montgomery,
Reining in the Writ: Limiting the Seventh Circuit’s Discretion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in Federal Death Penalty Cases,
41
S. Ill. U. L.J.
439
(2017).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol41/iss3/3