NCJ Number
83860
Date Published
1981
Length
187 pages
Annotation
Representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), State judicial systems, civil rights organizations, and legal associations testified on proposed Senate legislation to amend Federal habeas corpus procedures with regard to State prisoners convicted under State judgments.
Abstract
Opening statements from two senators supporting the bill reviewed provisions of S.653 and discussed problems caused by the vastly increased use of habeas corpus writ by State prisoners to attack their State court convictions. The bill would bar magistrates from hearing cases in which evidentiary hearings are necessary, codify the 'cause and prejudice' standard laid down by the Supreme Court in Wainwright v. Sykes, and create a statute of limitations for habeas claims. The final section would set limits on the necessity of evidentiary hearings by the Federal Court when findings of fact had been made fairly and properly in the State Court. A witness from the DOJ expressed support for the reform, but suggested revisions in individual provisions. The State Attorney General for Florida endorsed the bill, highlighted abuses of the habeas corpus writ, and submitted supportive statements from the National Governor's Association and legal associations. Testimony from the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court addressed relationships between Federal and State courts and the need for reform to increase citizens' respect for the criminal justice system. Magistrates from the District of Columbia and Virginia commented that they were unaware of problems with magistrates conducting evidentiary hearings and suggested that the committee investigate the role that magistrates have played in rendering substantial judicial assistance in compiling the evidentiary record in habeas corpus cases. A final panel of witnesses from the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Legal Aid and Defense Association, and the National Bar Association detailed their opposition to the bill. In general, they felt that the legislation was unnecessary and could lead to great injustice in certain cases. The bill's text and additional statements submitted to the committee are included.