I
103D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4018
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
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 Revi-
sion 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 follow-
ing:
‘‘§ 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
section and the performance standards established
by the appointing authority.
‘‘(b) A mechanism for providing legal services to
indigents within the meaning of subsection (a)(1) of this
section shall include the following elements:
‘‘(1) The State shall provide legal services to—
‘‘(A) indigents charged with offenses for
which capital punishment is sought;
‘‘(B) indigents who have been sentenced to
death and who seek appellate, collateral, or uni-
tary review in State court; and
‘‘(C) indigents who have been sentenced to
death and who seek certiorari review of State
court judgments in the United States Supreme
Court.
‘‘(2) The State shall establish a counsel author-
ity, which shall be—
‘‘(A) a statewide defender organization;
‘‘(B) a resource center; or
‘‘(C) a counsel authority appointed by the
highest State court having jurisdiction over
criminal matters, consisting of members of the
bar with substantial experience in, or commit-
ment to, the representation of criminal defend-
ants in capital cases, and comprised of a bal-
anced representation from each segment of the
State’s criminal defense bar.
‘‘(3) The counsel authority shall—
‘‘(A) publish a roster of attorneys qualified
to be appointed in capital cases, procedures by
which attorneys are appointed, and standards
governing qualifications and performance of
counsel, which shall include—
‘‘(i) knowledge and understanding of
pertinent legal authorities regarding issues
in capital cases; and
‘‘(ii) skills in the conduct of negotia-
tions and litigation in capital cases, the in-
vestigation of capital cases and the psy-
chiatric history and current condition of
capital clients, and the preparation and
writing of legal papers in capital cases;
‘‘(B) monitor the performance of attorneys
appointed and delete from the roster any attor-
ney who fails to meet qualification and perform-
ance standards; and
‘‘(C) appoint a defense team, which shall
include at least 2 attorneys, to represent a cli-
ent at the relevant stage of proceedings, within
30 days after receiving notice of the need for
the appointment from the relevant State court.
‘‘(4) An attorney who is not listed on the roster
shall be appointed only on the request of the client
concerned and in circumstances in which the attor-
ney requested is able to provide the client with qual-
ity legal representation.
‘‘(5) No counsel appointed pursuant to this sec-
tion to represent a prisoner in State postconviction
proceedings shall have previously represented the
prisoner at trial or on direct appeal in the case for
which the appointment is made, unless the prisoner
and counsel expressly request continued representa-
tion.
‘‘(6) The ineffectiveness or incompetence of
counsel appointed pursuant to this section during
State or Federal postconviction proceedings shall not
be a ground for relief in a proceeding arising under
section 2254 of this title. This limitation shall not
preclude the appointment of different counsel at any
phase of State or Federal postconviction proceed-
ings.
‘‘(7) Upon receipt of notice from the counsel
authority that an individual entitled to the appoint-
ment of counsel under this section has declined to
accept such an appointment, the court requesting
the appointment shall conduct, or cause to be con-
ducted, a hearing, at which the individual and coun-
sel proposed to be appointed under this section shall
be present, to determine the individual’s competency
to decline the appointment, and whether the individ-
ual has knowingly and intelligently declined it.
‘‘(8) Attorneys appointed pursuant to this sec-
tion shall be compensated on an hourly basis pursu-
ant to a schedule of hourly rates as periodically es-
tablished by the counsel authority after consultation
with the highest State court with jurisdiction over
criminal matters. Appointed counsel shall be reim-
bursed for expenses reasonably incurred in rep-
resenting the client, including the costs of law clerks,
paralegals, investigators, experts, or other support
services.
‘‘(9) Support services for staff attorneys of a
defender organization or resource center shall be
equal to the services listed in paragraph (8).’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 153 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding after the provision added by
section 804 the following:
‘‘2257. Counsel in capital cases; State court.’’.
SEC. 6. SUCCESSIVE FEDERAL PETITIONS.
Section 2244(b) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(b)’’;
(2) by inserting ‘‘, in the case of an applicant
not under sentence of death,’’ after ‘‘When’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) In the case of an applicant under sentence
of death, a claim presented in a second or successive
application, that was not presented in a prior appli-
cation under this chapter, shall be dismissed un-
less—
‘‘(A) the applicant shows that—
‘‘(i) the basis of the claim could not
have been discovered by the exercise of
reasonable diligence before the applicant
filed the prior application; or
‘‘(ii) the failure to raise the claim in
the prior application was due to action by
State officials in violation of the Constitu-
tion of the United States; and
‘‘(B) the facts underlying the claim would
be sufficient, if proven, to undermine the
court’s confidence in the applicant’s guilt of the
offense or offenses for which the capital sen-
tence was imposed, or in the validity of that
sentence under Federal law.’’.
SEC. 7. CERTIFICATES OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
The third paragraph of section 2253, of title 28,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘An appeal may not be taken to the court of
appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus pro-
ceeding where the detention complained of arises out
of process issued by a State court, unless the justice
or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of probable cause. How-
ever, an applicant under sentence of death shall have
a right of appeal without a certification of probable
cause, except after denial of a second or successive
application.’’.
SEC. 8. DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT COURT.
Section 2254(a) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘In adjudicating the merits of any such ground,
the court shall exercise independent judgment in
ascertaining the pertinent Federal legal standards
and in applying those standards to the facts and
shall not defer to a previous State court judgment
regarding a Federal legal standard or its application.
Upon request, the court shall permit the parties to
present evidence regarding material facts that were
not adequately developed in State court. The court
shall award relief with respect to any meritorious
constitutional ground, unless, in the case of a viola-
tion that can be harmless, the respondent shows that
the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’’.
SEC. 9. CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 153 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding after the provision
added by section 805 of this subtitle the following:
‘‘§ 2258. Claims of innocence
‘‘(a) At any time, and notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, a district court shall issue habeas corpus
relief on behalf of an applicant under sentence of death,
imposed either in Federal or in State court, who offers
credible newly discovered evidence which, had it been pre-
sented to the trier of fact or sentencing authority at trial,
would probably have resulted in—
‘‘(1) an acquittal of the offense for which the
death sentence was imposed; or
‘‘(2) a sentence other than death.
‘‘(b) An application filed pursuant to subsection (a)
shall offer substantial evidence which, if credible, would
establish one of the standards in subsection (a)(1) or (2).
An application that fails to do so may be dismissed.
‘‘(c) If the court concludes that an application meets
the requirements in subsection (b), the court shall—
‘‘(1) order the respondent to file an answer;
‘‘(2) permit the parties to conduct reasonable
discovery;
‘‘(3) conduct a hearing to resolve disputed is-
sues of fact; and
‘‘(4) upon request, issue a stay of execution
pending further proceedings in the district court and
on direct review of the district court’s judgment.
‘‘(d) If the court concludes that the applicant meets
the standards established by subsection (a)(1) or (2), the
court shall order his or her release, unless a new trial or,
in an appropriate case, a new sentencing proceeding, is
conducted within a reasonable time.
‘‘(e) If the court determines that the applicant is cur-
rently entitled to pursue other available and effective rem-
edies in either State or Federal court, the court may, at
the request of either party, suspend its consideration of
the application under this section until the applicant has
exhausted those remedies. A stay issued pursuant to sub-
section (c) shall remain in effect during such a suspension.
‘‘(f) An application under this section may be consoli-
dated with any other pending application under this chap-
ter, filed by the same applicant.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 153 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding after the provision added by
section 805 of this subtitle the following:
‘‘2258. Claims of innocence.’’.
SEC. 10. PROCEDURAL DEFAULT IN STATE COURT.
Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding the following:
‘‘(h)(1) A district court shall decline to consider a
claim under this section if—
‘‘(A) the applicant previously failed to raise the
claim in State court at the time and in the manner
prescribed by State law; the State courts, for that
reason, refused or would refuse to entertain the
claim; such refusal would constitute an adequate and
independent State law ground that would foreclose
direct review of the State court judgment in the Su-
preme Court of the United States; and
‘‘(B) the applicant fails to show cause for the
failure to raise the claim in State court and preju-
dice to the applicant’s right to fair proceedings or to
an accurate outcome resulting from the alleged viola-
tion of the Federal right asserted, or that failure to
consider the claim would result in a miscarriage of
justice.
‘‘(2) The court shall not find cause in any case in
which it appears that the applicant or counsel deliberately
withheld a claim from the State courts for strategic pur-
poses. An applicant may establish cause by showing that—
‘‘(A) the factual basis of the claim could not
have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable
diligence before the applicant could have raised the
claim in State court;
‘‘(B) the claim relies on a decision of the Su-
preme Court of the United States, announced after
the applicant might have raised the claim in State
court; or
‘‘(C) the failure to raise the claim in State
court was due to interference by State officials,
counsel’s ignorance or neglect, or counsel’s ineffec-
tive assistance in violation of the Constitution.’’.
Æ
HR 4018 IH——2