Senators who wanted to pass the terrorist bill - but also protect the rights of wrongly convicted, innocent people - tried to convince their colleagues to retain the power of Federal courts to insure that justice is done:

In one real-life case, a man named Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was convicted after the police failed to tell the court that one witness who testified against Carter had first said that Carter was innocent. He changed his testimony after police falsely told him that a polygraph he had taken during his first statement showed that he had been lying. The State of New Jersey, which tried to stop Federal habeas review, argued that this fact would not have changed the outcome of the case. The Federal court disagreed, and wound up ruling that Carter had been improperly convicted. The State then decided that it would not seek a retrial, and Carter was released after 20 years in prison. If the "reasonable" test that is in this bill had been in effect, THE FEDERAL COURT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER HURRICANE CARTER'S APPEAL, AND HE WOULD BE IN PRISON STILL, as would numerous other prisoners who have been unjustly imprisoned. We are not arguing that police and prosecutorial misconduct is common; we are instead arguing that it does occur, and sometimes States refuse to provide proper redress.

These arguments fell on deaf ears. Discussion on the amendment to protect the American right of habeas corpus was tabled. The Bill passed both houses of Congress and President Clinton signed it into law.

If Hurricane Carter were to file his appeal today, he would lose. His case would never be heard by the court. It would be dismissed because he was too late. Follow this link to the actual law - the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 - and look at Title I. The United States Constitution had been amended without following proper procedures.

Did anyone challenge the law? Was a Bill to amend the Antiterrorist Act filed?

GO TO STORY INDEX