IB
Union Calendar No. 262
103D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4018
[Report No. 103–470]
To revise habeas corpus proceedings.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 11, 1994
Mr. EDWARDS of California introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
MARCH 25, 1994
Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
and ordered to be printed
A BILL
To revise habeas corpus proceedings.
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 title may be cited as the ‘‘Habeas Corpus
Revision Act of 1994’’.
SEC. 2. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(g)(1) In the case of an applicant under sentence
of death, any application for habeas corpus relief under
this section must be filed in the appropriate district court
not later than 1 year after—
‘‘(A) the date of denial of a writ of certiorari,
if a petition for a writ of certiorari to the highest
court of the State on direct appeal or unitary review
of the conviction and sentence is filed, within the
time limits established by law, in the Supreme
Court;
‘‘(B) the date of issuance of the mandate of the
highest court of the State on direct appeal or uni-
tary review of the conviction and sentence, if a peti-
tion for a writ of certiorari is not filed, within the
time limits established by law, in the Supreme
Court; or
‘‘(C) the date of issuance of the mandate of the
Supreme Court, if on a petition for a writ of certio-
rari the Supreme Court grants the writ and disposes
of the case in a manner that leaves the capital sen-
tence undisturbed.
‘‘(2) The time requirements established by this sec-
tion shall be tolled—
‘‘(A) during any period in which the State has
failed to provide counsel as required in section 2257
of this chapter;
‘‘(B) during the period from the date the appli-
cant files an application for State postconviction re-
lief until final disposition of the application by the
State appellate courts, if all filing deadlines are met;
and
‘‘(C) during an additional period not to exceed
90 days, if counsel moves for an extension in the
district court that would have jurisdiction of a ha-
beas corpus application and makes a showing of
good cause.’’.
SEC. 3. STAYS OF EXECUTION IN CAPITAL CASES.
Section 2251 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(a)(1)’’ before the first para-
graph;
(2) by inserting ‘‘(2)’’ before the second para-
graph; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(b) In the case of an individual under sentence of
death, a warrant or order setting an execution shall be
stayed upon application to any court that would have ju-
risdiction over an application for habeas corpus under this
chapter. The stay shall be contingent upon reasonable dili-
gence by the individual in pursuing relief with respect to
such sentence and shall expire if—
‘‘(1) the individual fails to apply for relief
under this chapter within the time requirements es-
tablished by section 2254(g) of this chapter;
‘‘(2) upon completion of district court and court
of appeals review under section 2254 of this chapter,
the application is denied and—
‘‘(A) the time for filing a petition for a
writ of certiorari expires before a petition is
filed;
‘‘(B) a timely petition for a writ of certio-
rari is filed and the Supreme Court denies the
petition; or
‘‘(C) a timely petition for certiorari is filed
and, upon consideration of the case, the Su-
preme Court disposes of it in a manner that
leaves the capital sentence undisturbed; or
‘‘(3) before a court of competent jurisdiction, in
the presence of counsel qualified under section 2257
of this chapter and after being advised of the con-
sequences of the decision, an individual waives the
right to pursue relief under this chapter.’’.
SEC. 4. LAW APPLICABLE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 153 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
‘‘§ 2256. Law applicable
‘‘(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), in an ac-
tion under this chapter, the court shall not apply a new
rule.
‘‘(b) A court shall apply a new rule, if the new rule—
‘‘(1) places the claimant’s conduct beyond the
power of the criminal law-making authority to pro-
scribe or punish with the sanction imposed; or
‘‘(2) requires the observance of procedures
without which the likelihood of an accurate convic-
tion or valid capital sentence is seriously diminished.
‘‘(c) As used in this section, the term ‘new rule’
means a clear break from precedent, announced by the
Supreme Court of the United States, that could not rea-
sonably have been anticipated at the time the claimant’s
sentence became final in State court. A rule is not ‘new’
merely because it was not dictated or compelled by the
precedents existing at that time or because, at that time,
it was susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 153 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘2256. Law applicable.’’.
SEC. 5. COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES; STATE COURT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 153 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding after the provision
added by section 804 of this subtitle the following:
‘‘§ 2257. Counsel in capital cases; State court
‘‘(a) Notwithstanding section 2254(d) of this chapter,
the court in an action under this chapter shall neither pre-
sume a finding of fact made in a State court proceeding
specified in subsection (b)(1) of this section to be correct
nor decline to consider a claim on the ground that it was
not raised in such a proceeding at the time or in the man-
ner prescribed by State law, unless—
‘‘(1) the relevant State maintains a mechanism
for providing legal services to indigents in capital
cases that meets the specifications in subsection (b)
of this section;
‘‘(2) if the applicant in the instant case was eli-
gible for the appointment of counsel and did not
waive such an appointment, the State actually ap-
pointed an attorney or attorneys to represent the ap-
plicant in the State proceeding in which the finding
of fact was made or the default occurred; and
‘‘(3) the attorney or attorneys so appointed
substantially met both the qualification standards
specified in subsection (b)(3)(A) or (b)(4) of this