NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING DOCKET NO. OJP (DOJ) 1540

AG ORDER NO. 3255

- 2011; RIN1121

- AA77 76 FR 11705 (MARCH 3, 2011)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR

STATE CAPITAL COUNSEL SYSTEMS

MEETING SUMMARY

RE: MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF U.S.

COURTS

DATE/TIME OF MEETING: MAY 11, 2011 2:00 PM

- 3 :00 PM

PLACE OF MEETING: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RFK BUILDING

ATTENDEES:

FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF U.S. COURTS :



### Steve Asin , Deputy Assistant Director of Office of Defender Services, Administrative

Office of U.S. Courts

Mark Blaskey, Attorney Advisor in Office of Defender Services, Administrative Office

of U.S. Courts

Peter Owen, Office of Legislative Affairs, Administrativ e Office of U.S. Courts

Mark Olive, National Habeas Assistance and Training Counsel

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE :

Pamela Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy

Lisa Ellman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy

Caroline Nguyen, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

The representatives of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts requested a meeting with the Department of Justice to discuss their reactions to and comments on the Notice of P roposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which was formally published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2011. The representatives introduced the session by describing the Office of Defender Services at the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, and its interest in the proposed rule. They stated their belief

that the propose d rule was a considerable improvement over the previous (now removed) rule on the subject. They expressed gratitude to the Depart ment , and offered their support and assistance to the Department in finalizing this proposed rule.The Department opened the session by explaining that this meeting, in accordance with office

policy, was to be a listening session only. The Department emphasized that it welcome d comments to the proposed rule , and would carefully consider all submissions.

T he meeting continued wit h the representatives of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts making a number of specific suggestions about the proposed rule

. In particular, the representa tives expressed their concerns that , under the current version of the proposed rule : 1) there was no assurance that the petitioner would receive complete and fair course of collateral review, given the 6

- month timeframe in the statute for filing a federal petition; 2) the qualification provisions were potentially inadequate because § 26.22(b)(1) does not account for capital experience in particular, nor

habe as / post

- conviction experience ; 3) the enforcement mechanism is weak, and so the Department

should add additiona l monitoring provisions from the Innocence Protection Act. The representatives

of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts also noted that it would be helpful to know what the state application would be required to look like, and requested that the Depart ment publish denials of certification requests.

The meeting ended with the Department encouraging the representatives to lay out t he full

extent of their recommendations in their written comments.