I
103D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3329
To assure due process and equal protection of the law by permitting the
use of statistical and other evidence to challenge the death penalty
on the grounds of disproportionate patterns of imposition with respect
to racial groups, to prohibit such patterns, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 21, 1993
Mr. CONYERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To assure due process and equal protection of the law by
permitting the use of statistical and other evidence to
challenge the death penalty on the grounds of dispropor-
tionate patterns of imposition with respect to racial
groups, to prohibit such patterns, and for other purposes.
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 ‘‘Racial Justice Act of
1993’’.
HR 3329 IH
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN DISPROPOR-
TIONATE PATTERN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—A government shall not impose or
carry out the penalty of death in criminal cases in a ra-
cially disproportionate pattern. An individual shall not be
put to death in execution of a death sentence imposed
under law administered in violation of this subsection.
(b) DISPROPORTIONATE PATTERN.—For purposes of
subsection (a), a racially disproportionate pattern occurs
when the penalty of death is imposed—
(1) more frequently upon persons of one race
than upon persons of other races convicted of crimes
for which such penalty may be imposed; or
(2) more frequently as punishment for crimes
against persons of one race than as punishment for
crimes against persons of another race;
and the greater frequency is not explained by relevant
nonracial circumstances.
SEC. 3. PROOF REQUIREMENTS.
(a) ESTABLISHING PATTERN.—To establish that a
racially disproportionate pattern exists for the purposes of
this Act—
(1) ordinary methods of statistical proof suffice;
and
HR 3329 IH
(2) it shall not be necessary to show discrimina-
tory motive, intent, or purpose on the part of any in-
dividual or institution.
(b) PRIMA FACIE CASE.—To establish a prima facie
showing that a racially disproportionate pattern exists for
purposes of this Act, it suffices to show that death sen-
tences are being imposed or executed—
(1) upon persons of one race with a frequency
that is disproportioned to their representation
among the total numbers of persons arrested for,
charged with, or convicted of, death eligible crimes;
or
(2) as punishment for crimes against persons of
one race with a frequency that is disproportioned to
their representation among the numbers of persons
against whom death eligible crimes have been the
subject of arrests, charges, or convictions.
(c) REBUTTAL OF PRIMA FACIE CASE.—To rebut a
prima facie showing of a racially disproportionate pattern,
a government must establish by clear and convincing evi-
dence that identifiable and pertinent nondiscriminatory
factors persuasively explain the observable racial dispari-
ties comprising the disproportion.
HR 3329 IH
SEC. 4. DATA ON DEATH PENALTY CASES.
(a) DESIGNATION OF CENTRAL AGENCY.—Any State
or Federal entity that provides by law for death to be im-
posed as a punishment for any crime shall designate a
central agency to collect and maintain pertinent data on
the charging, disposition, and sentencing patterns for all
cases of death-eligible crimes.
(b) FORM FOR DATA.—The central agency so des-
ignated shall devise and distribute to every local official
or agency responsible for the investigation or prosecution
of death-eligible crimes a standard form to collect perti-
nent data.
(c) PREPARATION OF DATA BY LOCAL OFFICIALS.—
Each local official responsible for the investigation or pros-
ecution of death-eligible crimes shall complete a standard
form on every case of death-eligible crime and shall trans-
mit it to the central agency no later than three months
after the disposition of each such case whether that dis-
position is by dismissal of charges, reduction of charges,
acceptance of a plea of guilty to the death-eligible crime
or to another crime, acquittal, conviction, or any decision
not to proceed with prosecution.
(d) POLICE AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.—In addi-
tion to the standard form, the local official or agency shall
transmit to the central agency one copy of all police and
HR 3329 IH
investigative reports made in connection with each case
of death-eligible crime.
(e) OTHER DUTIES
OF CENTRAL AGENCY.—The
central agency shall affirmatively monitor compliance with
this section by local officials and agencies. It shall main-
tain all standard forms, compile and index all information
contained in the forms, and make both the forms and the
compiled information publicly available. The compiled in-
formation shall be made publicly available in machine
readable form. The central agency shall also maintain a
centralized, alphabetically indexed file of all police and in-
vestigative reports transmitted to it by local officials or
agencies in every case of death-eligible crime. It shall allow
access to its file of police and investigative reports to coun-
sel of record for any person charged with any death-eligi-
ble crime or sentenced to death who has made, or intends
to make, a claim under section 2; and it may also allow
access to this file to other persons.
SEC. 5. LEGAL COUNSEL.
(a) REQUIREMENT.—In any action brought in a court
of the United States within the jurisdiction conferred by
sections 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28, United States
Code, in which any person raises a claim under section
2—
HR 3329 IH
(1) the court shall appoint counsel for any such
person who is financially unable to retain counsel;
and
(2) the court shall furnish investigative, expert
or other services necessary for the adequate develop-
ment of the claim to any such person who is finan-
cially unable to obtain such services.
(b) NONAPPLICATION
OF PRESUMPTION
OF COR-
RECTNESS.—Notwithstanding section 2254 of title 28,
United States Code, no determination on the merits of a
factual issue made by a State court pertinent to any claim
under section 2 shall be presumed to be correct unless—
(1) the State is in compliance with section 4;
(2) the determination was made in a proceeding
in a State court in which the person asserting the
claim was afforded rights to the appointment of
counsel and to the furnishing of investigative, ex-
pert, and other services necessary for the adequate
development of the claim which were substantially
equivalent to those provided by subsection (a); and
(3) the determination is one which is otherwise
entitled to be presumed to be correct under the cri-
teria specified in section 2254.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act—