I
103D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 5134
To protect victims of crime.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 29, 1994
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. CANADY, Mr. CLINGER,
Mr. WELDON, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. RIDGE, Ms. MOLINARI,
Mr. KYL, Mr. DELAY, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. BACHUS
of Alabama, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. TORKILDSEN, Mr. INGLIS of South Caro-
lina, Mr. LINDER, Mr. ROTH, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Ms. DUNN, Mr. DUNCAN,
and Mr. KNOLLENBERG) introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To protect victims of crime.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Victims’ Rights Act
of 1994’’.
TITLE I—ELIMINATING EXCES-
SIVE AND REDUNDANT AP-
PEALS
SEC. 101. PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR FILING WRIT OF HA-
BEAS CORPUS FOLLOWING FINAL JUDGMENT
OF A STATE COURT.
Section 2244 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(d) A one-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in cus-
tody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limi-
tation period shall run from the latest of the following:
‘‘(1) The time at which State remedies are ex-
hausted.
‘‘(2) The time at which the impediment to filing
an application created by State action in violation of
the Constitution or laws of the United States is re-
moved, where the applicant was prevented from fil-
ing by such State action.
‘‘(3) The time at which the Federal right as-
serted was initially recognized by the Supreme
Court, where the right has been newly recognized by
the Court and is retroactively applicable.
‘‘(4) The time at which the factual predicate of
the claim or claims presented could have been dis-
covered through the exercise of reasonable dili-
gence.’’.
SEC. 102. AUTHORITY OF APPELLATE JUDGES TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATES OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AP-
PEAL IN HABEAS CORPUS AND FEDERAL COL-
LATERAL RELIEF PROCEEDINGS.
Section 2253 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 2253. Appeal
‘‘(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding
under section 2255 of this title before a circuit or district
judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal,
by the court of appeals for the circuit where the proceed-
ing is had.
‘‘(b) There shall be no right of appeal from such an
order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to
remove, to another district or place for commitment or
trial, a person charged with a criminal offense against the
United States, or to test the validity of his detention pend-
ing removal proceedings.
‘‘(c) An appeal may not be taken to the court of ap-
peals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding
where the detention complained of arises out of process
issued by a State court, or from the final order in a pro-
ceeding under section 2255 of this title, unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause.’’.
SEC. 103. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF AP-
PELLATE PROCEDURE.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 is amended
to read as follows:
‘‘RULE 22
‘‘HABEAS CORPUS AND SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS
‘‘(a) APPLICATION FOR AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF HA-
BEAS CORPUS.—An application for a writ of habeas cor-
pus shall be made to the appropriate district court. If ap-
plication is made to a circuit judge, the application will
ordinarily be transferred to the appropriate district court.
If an application is made to or transferred to the district
court and denied, renewal of the application before a cir-
cuit judge is not favored; the proper remedy is by appeal
to the court of appeals from the order of the district court
denying the writ.
‘‘(b) NECESSITY
OF CERTIFICATE
OR PROBABLE
CAUSE FOR APPEAL.—In a habeas corpus proceeding in
which the detention complained of arises out of process
issued by a State court, and in a motion proceeding pursu-
ant to section 2255 of title 28, United States Code, an
appeal by the applicant or movant may not proceed unless
a circuit judge issues a certificate of probable cause. If
a request for a certificate of probable cause is addressed
to the court of appeals, it shall be deemed addressed to
the judges thereof and shall be considered by a circuit
judge or judges as the court deems appropriate. If no ex-
press request for a certificate is filed, the notice of appeal
shall be deemed to constitute a request addressed to the
judges of the court of appeals. If an appeal is taken by
a State or the Government or its representative, a certifi-
cate of probable cause is not required.’’.
SEC. 104. DISCRETION TO DENY HABEAS CORPUS APPLICA-
TION DESPITE FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE
REMEDIES.
Section 2254(b) of title 28, United State Code, is
amended to read as follows:
‘‘(b) An application for a writ of habeas corpus in
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment
of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears
that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available
in the courts of the State, or that there is either an ab-
sence of available State corrective process or the existence
of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to pro-
tect the rights of the applicant. An application may be
denied on the merits notwithstanding the failure of the
applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts
of the State.’’.
SEC. 105. PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR FEDERAL PRIS-
ONERS FILING FOR COLLATERAL REMEDY.
Section 2255 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking the second paragraph and the penul-
timate paragraph thereof, and by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘A two-year period of limitation shall apply to a mo-
tion under this section. The limitation period shall run
from the latest of the following:
‘‘(1) The time at which the judgment of convic-
tion becomes final.
‘‘(2) The time at which the impediment to mak-
ing a motion created by governmental action in vio-
lation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States is removed, where the movant was prevented
from making a motion by such governmental action.
‘‘(3) The time at which the right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, where the
right has been newly recognized by the Court and is
retroactively applicable.
‘‘(4) The time at which the factual predicate of
the claim or claims presented could have been dis-
covered through the exercise of reasonable dili-
gence.’’.
SEC. 106. SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR COLLATERAL PRO-
CEEDINGS IN CAPITAL CASES.
(a) Title 28, United States Code, is amended by in-
serting the following new chapter after chapter 153:
‘‘CHAPTER 154—HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURES IN CAPITAL
CASES
‘‘Sec.
‘‘2256. Prisoners in State custody subject to capital sentence; appointment of
counsel; requirement of rule of court or statute; procedures for
appointment.
‘‘2257. Mandatory stay of execution; duration; limits on stays of execution; suc-
cessive petitions.
‘‘2258. Filing of habeas corpus petition; time requirements; tolling rules.
‘‘2259. Evidentiary hearings; scope of Federal review; district court adjudica-
tion.
‘‘2260. Certificate of probable cause inapplicable.
‘‘2261. Application to State unitary review procedure.
‘‘2262. Limitation periods for determining petitions.
‘‘2263. Rule of construction.
‘‘§ 2256. Prisoners in State custody subject to capital
sentence; appointment of counsel; re-
quirement of rule of court or statute; pro-
cedures for appointment
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—This chapter applies to cases
arising under section 2254 brought by prisoners in State
custody who are subject to a capital sentence. It applies
only as provided in subsections (b) and (c).
‘‘(b) STATEMENT RULE.—This chapter applies if a
State establishes by rule of its court of last resort or by
statute a mechanism for the appointment, compensation
and payment of reasonable litigation expenses of com-
petent counsel in State postconviction proceedings brought
by indigent prisoners whose capital convictions and sen-
tences have been upheld on direct appeal to the court of
last resort in the State or have otherwise become final for
State law purposes. The rule of court or statute must pro-
vide standards of competency for the appointment of such
counsel.
‘‘(c) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.—Any mechanism
for the appointment, compensation and reimbursement of
counsel as provided in subsection (b) must offer counsel
to all State prisoners under capital sentence and must pro-
vide for the entry of an order by a court of record (1)
appointing one or more counsel to represent the prisoner
upon a finding that the prisoner is indigent and accepted
the offer or is unable competently to decide whether to
accept or reject the offer; (2) finding, after a hearing if
necessary, that the prisoner rejected the offer of counsel
and made the decision with an understanding of its legal
consequences; or (3) denying the appointment of counsel
upon a finding that the prisoner is not indigent.
‘‘(d) DISQUALIFICATION
FOR APPOINTMENT.—No
counsel appointment pursuant to subsections (b) and (c)
to represent a State prisoner under capital sentence shall
have previously represented the prisoner at trial or on di-
rect appeal in the case for which the appointment is made
unless the prisoner and counsel expressly request contin-
ued representation.
‘‘(e) LIMITATION ON GROUND FOR RELIEF.—The in-
effectiveness or incompetence of counsel during State or
Federal collateral postconviction proceedings in a capital
case shall not be a ground for relief in a proceeding arising
under section 2254. This limitation shall not preclude the
appointment of different counsel, on the court’s own mo-
tion or at the request of the prisoner, at any phase of
State or Federal postconviction proceedings on the basis
of the ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel in such
proceedings.
‘‘§ 2257. Mandatory stay of execution; duration; limits
on stays of execution; successive peti-
tions
‘‘(a) STAY OF EXECUTION.—Upon the entry in the
appropriate State court of record of an order under section
2256(c), a warrant or order setting an execution date for
a State prisoner shall be stayed upon application to any
court that would have jurisdiction over any proceedings
filed under section 2254. The application must recite that
the State has invoked the postconviction review procedures
of this chapter and that the scheduled execution is subject
to stay.
‘‘(b) EXPIRATION OF STAY.—A stay of execution
granted pursuant to subsection (a) shall expire if—
‘‘(1) a State prisoner fails to file a habeas cor-
pus petition under section 2254 within the time re-
quired in section 2258, or fails to make a timely ap-
plication for court of appeals review following the de-
nial of such a petition by a district court;
‘‘(2) upon completion of district court and court
of appeals review under section 2254 the petition for
relief is denied and (A) the time for filing a petition
for certiorari has expired and no petition has been
filed; (B) a timely petition for certiorari was filed
and the Supreme Court denied the petition; or (C)
a timely petition for certiorari was filed and upon
consideration of the case, the Supreme Court dis-
posed of it in a manner that left the capital sentence
undisturbed; or
‘‘(3) before a court of competent jurisdiction, in
the presence of counsel and after having been ad-
vised of the consequences of his decision, a State
prisoner under capital sentence waives the right to
pursue habeas corpus review under section 2254.
‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON COURT AUTHORITY.—If one of
the conditions in subsection (b) has occurred, no Federal
court thereafter shall have the authority to enter a stay
of execution or grant relief in a capital case unless—
‘‘(1) the basis for the stay and request for relief
is a claim not previously presented in the State or
Federal courts;
‘‘(2) the failure to raise the claim is (A) the re-
sult of State action in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States; (B) the result of the
Supreme Court recognition of a new Federal right
that is retroactively applicable; or (C) based on a
factual predicate that could not have been discovered
through the exercise of reasonable diligence in time
to present the claim for State or Federal
postconviction review; and
‘‘(3) The facts underlying the claim would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evi-
dence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable
fact finder would have found the petitioner guilty of
the underlying offense or eligible for the death pen-
alty under State law.
‘‘(d) SUCCESSIVE HABEAS STAYS.—Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, no Federal district court or
appellate judge shall have the authority to enter a stay
of execution, issue injunctive relief, or grant any equitable
or other relief in a capital case on any successive habeas
petition (or other action which follows the final determina-
tion of a first habeas corpus petition) unless the court first
determines the petition or other action does not constitute
an abuse of the writ. This determination shall be made
only by the district judge or appellate panel who adju-
dicated the merits of the original habeas petition (or to
the district judge or appellate panel to which the case may
have been subsequently assigned as a result of the unavail-
ability of the original court or judges). In the Federal
courts of appeal, a stay may issue pursuant to the terms
of this provision only when a majority of the original panel
or majority of the active judges determines the petition
does not constitute an abuse of the writ.
‘‘§ 2258. Filing of habeas corpus petition; time re-
quirements; tolling rules
‘‘Any petition for habeas corpus relief under section
2254 must be filed in the appropriate district court within
one hundred and eighty days from the filing in the appro-
priate State court of record of an order under section
2256(c). The time requirements established by this section
shall be tolled—
‘‘(1) from the date that a petition for certiorari
is filed in the Supreme Court until the date of final
disposition of the petition if a State prisoner files
the petition to secure review by the Supreme Court
of the affirmance of a capital sentence on direct re-
view by the court of last resort of the State or other
final State court decision on direct review;
‘‘(2) during any period in which a State pris-
oner under capital sentence has a properly filed re-
quest for postconviction review pending before a
State court of competent jurisdiction; if all State fil-
ing rules are met in a timely manner, this period
shall run continuously from the date that the State
prisoner initially files for postconviction review until
final disposition of the case by the highest court of
the State, but the time requirements established by
this section are not tolled during the pendency of a
petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court ex-
cept as provided in paragraph (1); and
‘‘(3) during an additional period not to exceed
sixty days, if (A) a motion for an extension of time
is filed in the Federal district court that would have
proper jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of
a habeas corpus petition under section 2254; and
(B) a showing of good cause is made for the failure
to file the habeas corpus petition within the time pe-
riod established by this section.
§ 2259. Evidentiary hearings; scope of Federal review;
district court adjudication
‘‘(a) PROCEDURE.—Whenever a State prisoner under
a capital sentence files a petition for habeas corpus relief
to which this chapter applies, the district court shall—
‘‘(1) determine the sufficiency of the record for
habeas corpus review based on the claims actually
presented and litigated in the State courts except
when the prisoner can show that the failure to raise
or develop a claim in the State courts is (A) the re-
sult of State action in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States; (B) the result of the
Supreme Court recognition of a new Federal right
that is retroactively applicable; or (C) based on a
factual predicate that could not have been discovered
through the exercise of reasonable diligence in time
to present the claim for State postconviction review;
and
‘‘(2) conduct any requested evidentiary hearing
necessary to complete the record for habeas corpus
review.
‘‘(b) RULING ON CLAIMS.—Upon the development of
a complete evidentiary record, the district court shall rule
on the claims that are properly before it.
‘‘§ 2260. Certificate of probable cause inapplicable
‘‘The requirement of a certificate of probable cause
in order to appeal from the district court to the court of
appeals does not apply to habeas corpus cases subject to
the provisions of this chapter except when a second or suc-
cessive petition is filed.
§ 2261. Application to State unitary review procedure
‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, a
‘unitary review’ procedure means a State procedure that
authorizes a person under sentence of death to raise, in
the course of direct review of the judgment, such claims
as could be raised on collateral attack. The provisions of
this chapter shall apply, as provided in this section, in re-
lation to a State unitary review procedure if the State es-
tablished by rule of its court of last resort or by statute
a mechanism for the appointment, compensation and pay-
ment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent coun-
sel in the unitary review proceedings, including expenses
relating to the litigation of collateral claims in the proceed-
ings. The rule of court of statute must provide standards
of competency for the appointment of such counsel.
‘‘(b) QUALIFICATION.—A unitary review procedure,
to qualify under this section, must include an offer of
counsel following trial for the purpose of representation
on unitary review, and entry of an order, as provided in
section 2256(c), concerning appointment of counsel or
waiver or denial of appointment of counsel for that pur-
pose. No counsel appointed to represent the prisoner in
the unitary review proceedings shall have previously rep-
resented the prisoner at trial in the case for which the
appointment is made unless the prisoner and counsel ex-
pressly request continued representation.
‘‘(c) EFFECT OF QUALIFICATION.—Sections 2257,
2258, 2259, 2260, and 2262 shall apply in relation to
cases involving a sentence of death from any State having
a unitary review procedure that qualifies under this sec-
tion. References to State ‘post-conviction review’ and ‘di-
rect review’ in those sections shall be understood as refer-
ring to unitary review under the State procedure. The ref-
erences in sections 2257(a) and 2258 to ‘an order under
section 2256(c)’ shall be understood as referring to the
post-trial order under subsection (b) concerning represen-
tation in the unitary review proceedings, but if a tran-
script of the trial proceedings is unavailable at the time
of the filing of such an order in the appropriate State
court, then the start of the one hundred and eighty day
limitation period under section 2258 shall be deferred
until a transcript is made available to the prisoner or his
counsel.
‘‘§ 2262. Limitation periods for determining petitions
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(1) A Federal district court shall determine
such a petition or motion within 60 days of any ar-
gument heard on an evidentiary hearing, or where
no evidentiary hearing is held, within 60 days of any
final argument heard in the case.
‘‘(2)(A) The court of appeals shall hear and de-
termine any appeal relating to such a petition or
motion within 90 days after the filing of any reply
brief or within 90 days after such reply brief would
be due. For purposes of this provision, any reply
brief shall be due within 14 days of the opposition
brief.
‘‘(B) The court of appeals shall decide any peti-
tion for rehearing and or request by an appropriate
judge for rehearing en banc within 20 days of the
filing of such a petition or request unless a respon-
sive pleading is required in which case the court of
appeals shall decide the application within 20 days
of the filing of the responsive pleading. If en banc
consideration is granted, the en banc court shall de-
termine the appeal within 90 days of the decision to
grant such consideration.
‘‘(3) The time limitations contained in para-
graphs (1) and (2) may be extended only once for
20 days, upon an express good cause finding by the
court that the interests of justice warrant such a
one-time extension. The specific grounds for the
good cause finding shall be set forth in writing in
any extension order of the court.
‘‘(4) Since the matters under paragraphs (1)
and (2)(A) are to be handled on a priority basis, the
time from filing of the petition or motion to final ar-
gument (under paragraph (1)) or of the notice of
appeal to the hearing of the appeal (under para-
graph (2)(A)) shall not exceed 4 months, unless ex-
ceptional circumstances require a longer period.
Where such time period exceeds 4 months in any pe-
tition or motion (under paragraph (2)(A)), the court
shall set forth in writing the exceptional cir-
cumstances causing the delay.
‘‘(b) APPLICATION OF LIMITATION.—The time limi-
tations under section (a) shall apply to an initial petition
or motion, and to any second or successive petition or mo-
tion. The same limitations shall also apply to the re-deter-
mination of a petition or motion or related appeal follow-
ing a remand by the court of appeals or the Supreme
Court for further proceedings, and in such case the limita-
tion period shall run from the date of the remand.
‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION.—The time limitations under
this section shall not be construed to entitle a petitioner
or movant to a stay of execution, to which the petitioner
or movant would otherwise not be entitled, for the purpose
of litigating any petition, motion, or appeal.
‘‘(d) EFFECT OF FAILURE.—The failure of a court
to meet or comply with the time limitations under this sec-
tion shall not be a ground for granting relief from a judg-
ment of conviction or sentence. The State or Government
may enforce the time limitations under this section by ap-
plying to the court of appeals or the Supreme Court for
a writ of mandamus.
‘‘(e) REPORT.—The Administrative Office of United
States Courts shall report annually to Congress on the
compliance by the courts with the time limits established
in this section.
‘‘§ 2263. Rule of construction
‘‘This chapter shall be construed to promote the expe-
ditious conduct and conclusion of State and Federal court
review in capital cases.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters
at the beginning of part VI of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter
153 the following new item:
‘‘154. Special habeas corpus procedures in capital cases.’’.
TITLE II—REFORM OF
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
SEC. 201. REFORM OF EXCLUSIONARY RULE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 223 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing:
‘‘§ 3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search
or seizure assured
‘‘(a) EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY OBJECTIVELY REA-
SONABLE SEARCH OR SEIZURE.—Evidence which is ob-
tained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be ex-
cluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States
on the grounds that the search or seizure was in violation
of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, if the search or seizure was carried out in cir-
cumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that
it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact
that evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the
scope of a warrant constitutes prima facie evidence of the
existence of such circumstances.
‘‘(b) EVIDENCE NOT EXCLUDABLE BY STATUTE OR
RULE.—Evidence shall not be excluded in a proceeding
in a court of the United States on the ground that it was
obtained in violation of a statute, an administrative rule
or regulation, or a rule of procedure unless exclusion is
expressly authorized by statute or by a rule prescribed by
the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.
‘‘(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This section shall
not be construed to require or authorize the exclusion of
evidence in any proceeding.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 223 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure.’’.
TITLE III—PRISONS
SEC. 301. LUXURIES ABOLISHED.
Section 4001(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end: ‘‘The Attorney General
shall, not later than 120 days from the enactment of this
section, implement and enforce regulations mandating
prison work for all able-bodied inmates in Federal penal
and correctional institutions. Such regulations shall also
prohibit the government provision in inmates’ cells of tele-
vision, radio, telephone stereo or other similar amenities.’’.
SEC. 302. PRISON SECURITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 303 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing new section:
‘‘§ 4047. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited
‘‘The Bureau of Prisons shall take care that—
‘‘(1) prisoners under its jurisdiction do not en-
gage in any activities designed to increase both their
physical strength and their fighting ability; and
‘‘(2) that all equipment designed for this pur-
pose be removed from Federal correctional facili-
ties.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 303 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
‘‘4047. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited.’’.
TITLE IV—ENHANCED GUN
PENALTIES
SEC. 401. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR PERSONS CON-
VICTED OF USING OR CARRYING A FIREARM
DURING AND IN RELATION TO A FELONY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 924(c) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(c) Whoever, during and in relation to a crime that
is a felony (including a felony which provides for an en-
hanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly
or dangerous weapon or device) for which he may be pros-
ecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a
firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for
such crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years, and
if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled
shotgun, to imprisonment for 10 years, and if the firearm
is a machinegun or destructive device, or is equipped with
a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for
30 years. In the case of the 2nd or subsequent conviction
of the person under this subsection, the person shall be
sentenced to life imprisonment without release. Notwith-
standing any other provision of law, a term of imprison-
ment imposed under this subsection shall not run concur-
rently with any other term of imprisonment including that
imposed for the crime in which the firearm was used or
carried.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 101(a)(43)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(43)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(as in effect imme-
diately before the enactment of the Gun Crime Control
Act)’’ after ‘‘18’’ the 1st place such term appears.
TITLE V—DEATH PENALTY
SEC. 501. FINDING BY JURY.
Section 3593(e) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ‘‘the jury’’ the first place it appears
and all that follows through the end of subsection (e) and
inserting the following: ‘‘the jury, or if there is no jury,
the court, shall then consider whether the aggravating fac-
tor or factors found to exist outweigh any mitigating fac-
tors. The jury, or if there is no jury, the court shall rec-
ommend a sentence of death if it unanimously finds at
least one aggravating factor and no mitigating factor or
if it finds one or more aggravating factors which outweigh
any mitigating factors. In any other case, it shall not rec-
ommend a sentence of death. The jury shall be instructed
that it must avoid any influence of sympathy, sentiment,
passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factors in its deci-
sion, and should make such a recommendation as the in-
formation warrants. The jury shall be instructed that its
recommendation concerning a sentence of death is to be
based on the aggravating factor or factors and any miti-
gating factors which have been found, but that the final
decision concerning the balance of aggravating and miti-
gating factors is a matter for the jury’s judgment.’’.
SEC. 502. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 3594 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ‘‘or life imprisonment without possi-
bility of release’’.
TITLE VI—CIVIL RIGHTS OF IN-
STITUTIONALIZED 
PERSONS
ACT
SEC. 601. EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.
Section 8 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Per-
sons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e) is amended in subsection
(a)—
(1) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking ‘‘in any action brought’’
and inserting ‘‘no action shall be brought’’;
(B) by striking ‘‘the court shall’’ and all
that follows through ‘‘require exhaustion of’’
and insert ‘‘until’’; and
(C) by inserting ‘‘are exhausted’’ after
‘‘available’’; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or are oth-
erwise fair and effective’’ before the period at the
end.
SEC. 602. FRIVOLOUS ACTIONS.
Section 8(a) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
‘‘(3) The court shall on its own motion or on
motion of a party dismiss any action brought pursu-
ant to section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States by an adult convicted of a crime and
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional fa-
cility if the court is satisfied that the action fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted or is
frivolous or malicious.’’.