The Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) has introduced H.R. 3986, “The Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act.” The Act would permit a federal court to grant habeas relief in a capital case upon a showing that the petitioner is more likely than not innocent. That Act reads [more]
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the availability of Federal habeas corpus relief for a person who is sentenced to death though actually innocent.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act’.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED TO DEATH THOUGH ACTUALLY INNOCENT.
Section 2254(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `; or’ and inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; or’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) resulted in, or left in force, a sentence of death that was imposed without consideration of newly discovered evidence which, in combination with the evidence presented at trial, demonstrates that the applicant is probably not guilty of the underlying offense.’.
SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE PETITIONS.
(a) State Convictions- Section 2244(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `A’ and inserting `Except as provided in paragraph (5), a’;
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) A claim that an applicant was sentenced to death without consideration of newly discovered evidence which, in combination with the evidence presented at trial, could reasonably be expected to demonstrate that the applicant is probably not guilty of the underlying offense may be presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application.’.
(b) Federal Convictions- Section 2255(h) of title 28, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `or’;
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting `; or’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) a claim that an applicant was sentenced to death without consideration of newly discovered evidence which, in combination with the evidence presented at trial, could reasonably be expected to demonstrate that the applicant is probably not guilty of the underlying offense.’.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I know it defeats the whole purpose of a trial, but wouldn’t it just be a good idea to do a post conviction review of everyone’s guilt? I’m for the death penalty and I have no problem with reviewing claims of innocence (I’m a vocal supporter of the West Memphis 3.) I just have the feeling with this bill that if it was passed, we would be finding that everyone is finding “new evidence” just as a delay tactic to try to attack the conviction or sentence on procedural grounds. I think the only way this gets through is if something is introduced that further limits appeals that are not based on a claim of actual innocence. I’d be fine with it if it was altered to significantly shorten time between sentence and finality regardless of the outcome (Commutation, Execution, Overturned Sentence/Conviction.)
November 6th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I think this is a long overdue measure that is wholly consistent with the Court’s ruling in House v. Bell. The extension to successive petitions also is a thoughtful and needed component. The only suggestion I would like to see implemented is including this additional stautory round for relief to defendants serving sentences of life without parole. Leaving aside the obvious distinction between these two sentences, they are the functional equivalent of one another. If our society intends to move away from capital punishment towards a LWP scheme, I believe that these rules should be in place for defendants facing the possibility of spending the remainder of their lives behind bars.