{ "id": "RL33259", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL33259", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 349154, "date": "2007-01-12", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:33:15.944029", "title": "Federal Habeas Corpus Relief: Background, Legislation, and Issues", "summary": "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\u2019s ability to seek relief through the writ of habeas corpus.\nThe 109th Congress considered legislation that would have further restricted a state prisoner\u2019s access to federal habeas relief, and would have provided for expeditious habeas review of cases where a child, public safety officer, or state judge was killed. The 110th Congress may consider similar issues. At issue for Congress is whether it should further restrict state prisoners\u2019 access to federal habeas relief by limiting the federal role in policing constitutional violations in the states\u2019 criminal justice systems. Two issues have emerged as Congress considers such legislation\u2014trial finality and adequate representation. Proponents contend that restricting state prisoners\u2019 access to federal habeas 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\u2019 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.\nThe current debate over whether to reform the federal habeas corpus law is centered around state capital cases. These cases experience some of the lengthier delays that have been highlighted in congressional testimony. The issue of trial finality becomes apparent in these cases because the mandated outcome\u2014execution\u2014is suspended pending the outcome of the habeas proceeding. An analysis of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts\u2019 (AOUSC) data, however, does not fully support the claim that state capital habeas cases take excessively long to process. The data reveals that although the median time for state capital cases to make their way through a federal habeas 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.\nSince 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\u00a0able to competently engage in post-conviction 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\u2019 criminal justice systems, habeas corpus reform efforts will continue to be debated. This report will be updated as warranted.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33259", "sha1": "e4f25415aee37a9d66dfbf2f733ce3d0af74784b", "filename": "files/20070112_RL33259_e4f25415aee37a9d66dfbf2f733ce3d0af74784b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33259", "sha1": "ed02b2aa1c0e936bb1cad872e7532e9486ad28f0", "filename": "files/20070112_RL33259_ed02b2aa1c0e936bb1cad872e7532e9486ad28f0.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8967/", "id": "RL33259_2006Feb01", "date": "2006-02-01", "retrieved": "2006-07-03T14:45:11", "title": "Federal Habeas Corpus Relief: Background, Legislation, and Issues", "summary": "This report examines the issues surrounding the debate on whether to further\r\nrestrict state prisoners\u2019 access to federal habeas corpus filings. This report does not\r\ndiscuss issues related to federalism and the proper role of the federal court system in\r\noverseeing the actions of state courts pertaining to prisoners\u2019 constitutional rights.\r\nThe report opens with a discussion of a commission that was established in 1988 to\r\nstudy and make recommendations of the then-current federal habeas corpus system\r\nand the 1996 law that restricted prisoners\u2019 access to federal habeas corpus relief. It\r\nthen provides an analysis of federal habeas corpus petition data since 1990. The\r\nreport examines whether the number of federal habeas corpus petitions and the time\r\nit takes for the federal court system to process these claims have increased since the\r\nenactment of the the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act\r\n(AEDPA). It then discusses legislation introduced in the 109th\r\nCongress that would further restrict state prisoners\u2019 access to federal habeas corpus\r\nrelief. The report concludes with an analysis of two dominant issues that are at the\r\ncenter of this debate: delays caused by habeas corpus petitions and post-conviction\r\nrepresentation.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20060201_RL33259_cedb267df206ff6bfd23bcb95cac461be2beb307.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20060201_RL33259_cedb267df206ff6bfd23bcb95cac461be2beb307.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Civil liberties", "name": "Civil liberties" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Habeas corpus", "name": "Habeas corpus" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Criminal justice", "name": "Criminal justice" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions", "Intelligence and National Security" ] }