Book Description

Federal habeas corpus is the statutory procedure under which state and federal prisoners may petition the federal courts to review their convictions and sentences to determine whether they are being held contrary to the laws or the Constitution of the United States. In 1996, Congress passed legislation that restricted a prisoner's ability to seek relief through the writ of habeas corpus. The 109th Congress is considering legislation that would further restrict a state prisoner's access to federal habeas corpus relief (S. 1088/H.R. 3035). At issue for Congress is whether it should further restrict state prisoners' access to federal habeas corpus relief by limiting the federal role in policing constitutional violations in the states' criminal justice systems. Two issues have emerged as Congress considers such legislation -- trial finality and adequate representation. Proponents of habeas corpus reform contend that restricting state prisoners' access to federal habeas corpus relief is necessary due to many prisoners filing excessive and frivolous claims that result in a backlog in the system and substantial delays in the processing of these cases. Critics contend, however, that many states' criminal justice systems are flawed, with many indigent defendants lacking proper representation throughout all stages of the criminal justice system. They argue that for many defendants, the writ of habeas corpus plays a key role in restoring justice when the system fails. The current debate over whether to reform the federal habeas corpus law is centered around state capital cases. As of December 31, 2004, there were 3,282 prisoners on death row in state prisons. These cases experience some of the lengthier delays that have been highlighted in congressional testimony, and for many this is where the concern rests. The issue of trial finality becomes apparent in these cases because the mandated outcome -- execution -- is suspended pending the outcome of the habeas corpus proceeding. An analysis of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' (AOUSC) data, however, does not fully support the claim that state capital habeas corpus cases take excessively long to process. AOUSC data reveals that although the median time for state capital cases to make their way through a federal habeas corpus proceeding is twice as long as state non-capital cases, the rate of filing for habeas relief for both types of cases has remained constant. Since 1988, prisoners serving a federal capital sentence are entitled to counsel during all post-conviction proceedings. Unlike the federal criminal justice system, most states do not afford prisoners the same right. Critics contend that by not having a mandatory system of post-conviction representation, many states ignore the reality that indigent death row prisoners are not able to competently engage in postconviction litigation. A study that was conducted over a 23-year period raised the question of whether the delays commonly associated with federal habeas corpus review are necessary to make sure that justice is administered fairly. The research also raised the possibility that the errors found in capital cases may be the result of poor representation. Until the issue of adequate representation is fully addressed in the states' criminal justice systems, habeas corpus reform efforts will continue to be debated. This report will be updated as legislation warrants.