[Senate Hearing 109-366] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 109-366 HABEAS REFORM: THE STREAMLINED PROCEDURES ACT ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ NOVEMBER 16, 2005 __________ Serial No. J-109-52 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 2006 27-148 PDF For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement............................................. 62 Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin...................................................... 27 prepared statement........................................... 83 Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.......... 18 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 2 prepared statement........................................... 94 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania................................................... 1 WITNESSES Eisenberg, Ronald, Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania......... 5 McKibben, Howard D., Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, and Chairman, Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction, Judicial Conference of the United States, Reno, Nevada......................................................... 13 Waxman, Seth P., former Solicitor General of the United States, and Partner, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, Washington, D.C................................................ 7 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Howard D. McKibben to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 37 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD American Bar Association, Eric M. Freedman, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra Law School, Washington, D.C., prepared statement................... 44 American Judicature Society, Judicature, September-October 2005, Des Moines, Iowa, editorial.................................... 57 Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, Arizona, July 9, 2005, editorial..... 58 Concord Monitor, Concord, New Hampshire, July 17, 2005, editorial 60 Denver Post, Denver Colorado, August 9, 2005, editorial.......... 63 Detroit Free Press, Detroit, Michigan, July 19, 2005, editorial.. 64 Eisenberg, Ronald, Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, prepared statement............................................. 65 Federal Public and Community Defenders, Thomas W. Hillier, II, Federal Public Defender, Chair, Legislative Expert Panel, letter......................................................... 76 Hartford Courant, Hartford, Connecticut, October 25, 2005, editorial...................................................... 85 Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 2, 2005, editorial.. 86 Kansas City Star, Kansas City, Missouri: July 15, 2005, editorial..................................... 87 October 6, 2005, editorial................................... 90 Keene Sentinel, Keene, New Hampshire, July 23, 2005, editorial... 91 Knight-Ridder News Wire, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 23, 2005, editorial................................................ 92 Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, July 13, 2005, editorial...................................................... 96 McKibben, Howard D., Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, and Chairman, Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction, Judicial Conference of the United States, Reno, Nevada, prepared statement..................................... 97 New York Times, New York, New York, July 16, 2005, editorial..... 113 Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 28, 2005, editorial................................................ 114 St. Louis Post Dispatch, St. Louis, Missouri, July 13, 2005, editorial...................................................... 115 St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg, Florida: August 26, 2005, editorial................................... 117 October 31, 2005, editorial.................................. 118 San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, California, July 14, 2005, editorial................................................ 119 San Jose Mercury News, San Jose, California, August 19, 2005, editorial...................................................... 120 Tennessean, Nashville, Tennessee, July 22, 2005, editorial....... 121 Washington Post, Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2005, editorial..................................... 122 August 19, 2005, editorial................................... 123 September 29, 2005, editorial................................ 124 Waxman, Seth P., former Solicitor General of the United States, and Partner, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 125 HABEAS REFORM: THE STREAMLINED PROCEDURES ACT ---------- WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:44 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Specter, Kyl, Cornyn, Leahy, Feinstein, and Feingold. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Chairman Specter. The Judiciary Committee will proceed with this hearing on habeas corpus reform. We have been awaiting the arrival of other Committee members, but at this time we will move forward. This is the second hearing on the legislation introduced by Senator Kyl. It is an effort to balance some very complex considerations on death penalty cases to be sure that the constitutional rights of those convicted are observed with the collateral proceedings in habeas corpus, but at the same time to do what is fair to move ahead the conclusion of these proceedings. This is an area that I have been very familiar with over the years since my days as district attorney of Philadelphia and litigating many habeas corpus proceedings in the State courts and in the Federal courts. There is an overhang of opposition, I think fairly stated, to put a time limit on these proceedings because of people who are opposed to the death penalty. And I can understand that. It is a complicated subject, and people of good will and good faith are on both sides of the issue. I think it is important to note that in this legislation, we have expanded the DNA to do what is scientifically possible to exonerate the innocent. I note just the recent statistics released about a reduction in the number of death penalty cases, executions, and I think that is occasioned by public doubts as to the guilt of some who are under the death penalty and the growing concern about the death penalty. But as long as it is on the books and the States are moving ahead to enforce it, we ought to do what is practical to avoid enormous delays. The scheduling of this hearing has been very difficult because we cannot seem to get all the witnesses together at the same time, and only this morning I found that we do not have the representatives from the Chief Justices here, and I regret that. But we have the Judicial Conference here and we have former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who appeared at an earlier hearing and has been very helpful in trying to work out some of the intricacies. And we have an astute representative of the prosecutors here, somebody from the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. He did not serve at the right time, but he is serving now. Senator Kyl. It gets better all the time. Chairman Specter. And they are getting much better all the time. They relegate need ex-D.A.'s to who knows where. I had made a commitment to Senator Kyl to try to move this along. He has been very cooperative on the first substitute which my staff prepared under my name and the second substitute. And I think we have gone a long, long way. And Senator Feingold has been appropriately urging a hearing. I have been filibustering, Patrick-- Senator Leahy. Thank you. I showed up. Chairman Specter [continuing]. To make sure that you were here on time to make your opening statement. I have still got a minute and 15 seconds left. I ordinarily want to take 2 minutes. But as I was saying, Senator Feingold has been appropriately insistent on these hearings, and that is right. We ought to consider them. I was tempted at one point to move the bill out of Committee and decided not to, to give another hearing and to make every conceivable effort to meet all of the objections and to try to move ahead so that we do not get hung up on some claims which are exhausted and some which are unexhausted in the State court, which has an interminable tennis match, and to do what we could to provide effective assistance of counsel. And the 1996 legislation goes a long way there, but it has not been implemented because it has been so complicated, and we are working on that collaterally in other legislation which is being considered. I am delighted to yield now to our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Leahy. STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know your penchant--which I happen to agree with, and what I have followed the various times I have been Chairman--of starting on time and I appreciate your--I know you held up while I tried to get through unbelievable traffic jams. And I am glad you are holding this hearing. It is our second hearing. Since our first hearing back on July 13th, I believe, the bill has been strongly opposed by a wide range of experts and practitioners, and it has twice been rewritten. Yesterday, the Senate voted to strip Federal courts of the authority to consider habeas petitions from detainees being held in U.S. custody as enemy combatants, demonstrating once again to the rest of the world our great commitment to the rule of law, I guess. At no time before in our Nation's history have habeas rights been permanently cutoff from a group of prisoners. I found it interesting we are doing it at the same time when the President is abroad telling other countries that they must improve their commitment to the rule of law and to people's rights. And with the support of the White House, we are moving here to cutoff people's rights. It is fascinating double-talk. And we did it without even holding a Committee hearing on issues so fundamental to basic precepts and basic rights under our system of Government. I am glad to see our witnesses today. I am glad to see my friend Seth Waxman, a former Solicitor General. When we adopted the current version of the bill in October, it was claimed that this version addressed, or at least substantially addressed, all the concerns that Mr. Waxman had raised, and I do not believe that is the case. I will let him speak for himself on it. This version has a number of problems. The bill seeks to impose radical and unprecedented restrictions on the Great Writ of habeas corpus. I think it injects confusion into settled law. That only increases litigation. It does not decrease it. It would eliminate essential protections against wrongful convictions without making any kind of provisions for claims of innocence. If it is passed, it would preclude Federal courts from enforcing Federal constitutional rights. Just think about it. It would preclude them. Amazing court-stripping. The legal community recognizes this. The American Bar Association calls the bill before us ``a significant setback for justice.'' Both the U.S. Judicial Conference and the Conference of Chief Justices, who normally take a pretty conservative attitude on such things, have expressed grave concerns with this bill. They have urged further study and analysis before we start tearing apart the complex edifice that is Federal habeas law. The State Chief Justices cautioned us against passing a bill with ``unknown consequences for the State courts.'' The Judicial Conference reported the vast majority of habeas cases are already moving expeditiously through the system. We will hear more from them this morning. I know the bill has its defenders. But not one defender of the bill has offered systemic evidence of a real national problem with Federal habeas corpus under the current, post- AEDPA regime. This bill I think is a crude, partisan solution to an unproven and largely non-existent problem, and no amount of tinkering is going to improve that. If we want to reform the system, improve the quality, efficiency, and finality of criminal justice, there is a different solution. Unlike the SPA, it is a solution that would solve problems in the criminal justice system before they arise, rather than complicating the process of responding to problems via habeas. Unlike the SPA, it is a solution supported by the legal community and the public at large. And it is a solution to which the President and both Houses of Congress have previously committed on a bipartisan basis. It is a promise we made to the American people--a promise we made--and I think we have a duty not to renege on that promise. I speak, of course, of the Innocence Protection Act. We passed the Act 1 year ago in response to the shameful, widespread evidence of hopelessly underfunded, too often incompetent, and even drunk and sleeping defense counsel in some State capital trials. We did so because we saw only too well the costs of that systemic failure: innocent men on death row, and repeated, fundamental violations of constitutional rights. The Act established a new grant program to improve the quality of legal representation. This program would greatly reduce the risk of error in those cases. It would reduce the frequency of the most expensive and drawn-out post-conviction proceedings. If we are truly committed to improving the criminal justice system, let's not let Congress's check bounce by failing to fund something that we and the President and the other body all agreed to last year. We all agree that the trial should be the main event and abuses of habeas corpus should not be tolerated. I was a prosecutor. I believe that very strongly. But let's remember the trial process itself is flawed and it will remain flawed if we continue to skimp on essential funding. And wrongful convictions do occur. As Justice O'Connor has told us, the death penalty system is so flawed in America today we probably already have executed an innocent person. So let's not pass ill-conceived, unnecessary legislation that would only make an unacceptable situation far worse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. Our first witness is-- Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, might I, as a matter of personal privilege, ask Senator Leahy, if I heard him correctly, that he described my legislation as a ``crude, partisan solution.'' Is that what you said, Senator Leahy? Senator Leahy. I believe this legislation is, yes. I believe this legislation is not addressing--especially after we passed the Innocence Protection Act-- Senator Kyl. The question is whether you said ``crude, partisan solution.'' If so, I resent that, Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy. I have tried to work in a bipartisan way. We have taken 6 months now. I have worked with the Chairman. We have tried very hard to do something that responds to a real problem here, and I think that we ought to be discussing this in a sensible, careful, constructive way, and not turn it into some kind of a partisan attack and get into name-calling. Senator Leahy. What I said was--let's put it all in context. I said that I know the bill has its defenders, but not one defender of the bill has offered systemic evidence of a real national problem with Federal habeas corpus under the current, post-AEDPA regime, and the bill remains a crude, partisan solution to an unproven, largely non-existent problem, and no amount of tinkering will solve that. I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Arizona. We have worked together on a number of issues. My feeling about this bill remains the same. Chairman Specter. Senator Kyl, would you care to respond further? Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, I will just note that there are organizations that believe that this is a proper response to a Federal problem. The National District Attorneys' Association at their national convention recently endorsed generally this legislation, and there are others. And I will put a statement in the record, with your approval, that-- Chairman Specter. Without objection it will be made a part of the record. Senator Kyl [continuing]. Represents some more recent evidence of this phenomenon than was presented at the first hearing that we held. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Kyl. We now turn to Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. He is the head of the Law Division, which has responsibility for direct appeals, post-conviction matters, Federal litigation, and legislation. He comes from a very busy office which has hundreds of homicides, 500 during my tenure there some time ago; tens of thousands of cases, 30,000 during my tenure some time ago; and is very experienced, of necessity, in habeas corpus matters. Mr. Eisenberg, we thank you for coming back again, and to the extent you could focus on the length of time and the time lapses occasioned by the matters being referred to the Federal court and being remanded because of the failure to exhaust State remedies, and another round in the State courts, as to how long that takes, and then back to the district court, in the Eastern District and the Third Circuit, we would be appreciative. STATEMENT OF RONALD EISENBERG, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am the supervisor of the Law Division in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. We handle now hundreds of Federal habeas corpus petitions each year, although many of those drag on in litigation for several years, and many in crimes that occurred when I first joined the office 24 years ago. I would like to address some of the challenges that have been raised to the Streamlined Procedures Act. I am aware of the view preliminarily that the Federal habeas corpus review process is not in need of reform, that problems, if any, are localized in jurisdictions like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Of course, the Ninth Circuit is quite a large locality and worthy of Congressional attention in and of itself, but it is by no means unique when it comes to the gyrations imposed by current Federal helicopter practice. My experience has been in the Third Circuit, where we face almost exactly the same issues as my colleagues in States such as Arizona and California. I also serve on the board of a national capital prosecutors organization, and I meet regularly with lawyers from all over the country. We are all fighting the same habeas battles--over procedural default and exhaustion and filing deadlines and certificates of appealability and a dozen other habeas concepts that ought to be straightforwardly resolved but seldom are. Most habeas questions never reach the Supreme Court, so when circuit court decisions slow down the application of the habeas statute, we are generally stuck with them. Now, I am aware of the argument against habeas reforms that, to the extent problems exist in the administration of the statute, they are limited to the litigation of capital cases. But that, again, is not my experience. To be sure, capital habeas litigation consumes a hugely disproportionate share of habeas resources, and it is the engine that drives the development of convoluted, circuitous application of the habeas statute. Once these extra-statutory interpretations are developed, however, they cannot be confined to the capital context. For example, the doctrine of stay and abey, which was developed by the courts to deal with eve-of-execution cases, where the defendant wished to go back to State court and raise new claims without jeopardizing his Federal habeas corpus 1- year filing deadline. The Supreme Court has recently attempted to place some limitation on stay and abey, but now that the procedure exists, it cannot be restricted to capital cases. Any defendant, capital or non-, is free to engage in such stay litigation; and if he is successful, he can put his habeas petition on hold indefinitely while he files yet another appeal in State court. This will usually be at least his third appeal in state court, all the while holding his Federal habeas petition. Now, of the arguments against habeas reform perhaps the most ironic to me is that we do not need any more because AEDPA has fixed everything. The reasoning is that AEDPA, when it was originally enacted, disrupted settled law and required years for the courts to re-establish the status quo. Now that the statute has been ``shaken out,'' the law is stable again, and habeas litigation will move along rapidly, unless new reform upsets the apple cart. What matters most, however, is how questions under AEDPA are resolved, not how long it takes to resolve them. Take, for example, the doctrine of equitable tolling. In AEDPA, Congress created a 1-year filing deadline for habeas petitions, with various exceptions spelled out specifically in the statute. The Federal courts then decided that they could create their own exceptions that they call ``equitable tolling.'' Now, that equitable tolling as a general principle is well settled in the circuits, but it would be fiction to suggest that equitable tolling has, therefore, streamlined habeas corpus review. Just the opposite is true. There is absolutely no certainty in application of what was intended as a clear-cut deadline because at any moment the court might decide to invent a new equitable tolling exception. And, even worse, these new exceptions often require extensive factual inquiry in individual cases. A whole cottage industry of equitable tolling evidentiary hearings has now been born. Thus was the time bar transformed from a limitation on litigation into an invitation to litigate. AEDPA jurisprudence reveals many similar developments. In additional to stay and abey, proper filing, and equitable tolling issues, as I have discussed, we have seen for example, the growth of inadequacy review to undermine procedural default, the indulgence of excessive litigation on certificates of appealability, and the use of claim-splitting and other means of avoid the statutory deference requirement. I do not believe that Congress is stuck with these applications of the original habeas reform effort, and further legislation is appropriate. To take just one glaring example, a case that I have been working on where the crime was committed in 1981, the defendant was named Mumia Abu-Jamal. It is still on habeas review now. Four years ago, we filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We still do not even have a briefing schedule in that case. We have not been allowed to file briefs, let alone hold arguments, let alone await a decision from the Third Circuit. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Eisenberg appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Eisenberg. Our next witness is the former Solicitor General of the United States, Seth Waxman, partner at the prestigious firm of Wilmer, Cutler; an extraordinary academic background, summa cum laude at Harvard, a 1977 graduate of the Yale Law School, where he was managing editor--mostly those credentials bring you to the Supreme Court, Mr. Waxman. I don't know why you are here only for this hearing. [Laughter.] Chairman Specter. Has had numerous awards, they will be made part of the record, perhaps most notable the FBI installed him as a permanent honorary agent a few years back. I don't know if that disqualifies you from testifying, Mr. Waxman, but on a serious note, thank you for coming in again and thank you for all the work you have been doing as we have been laboring with the first substitute and the second substitute and now this hearing to address all of the issues we can in the most forthright and direct way we can to make sure that constitutional rights are not abrogated. The floor is yours. STATEMENT OF SETH P. WAXMAN, FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND PARTNER, WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful for the opportunity to come back. I did make a rash offer the last time I was here that I very much wanted to work with Senator Kyl and with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the staff and to get at the data and ascertain the extent to which there are problems in the system that AEDPA did not correct or, as I believe may be the case, there are problems in the system that AEDPA has introduced. And I believe I offered to charge you the same rate that I was charging for my testimony last time, and I have faithfully continued that pro bono representation. And I am very, very honored to be able to do it. I have met with Senator Kyl's staff. I have met with your staff. I have met with Senator Leahy's staff. There is nothing more important that I am involved in doing than what this Committee is all about right now. I am reminded, 2 weeks ago I went to see that wonderful movie that is out about Edward Murrow, ``Good Night, and Good Luck,'' about the bravery of Mr. Murrow during the regrettable period of the McCarthy hearings. And what struck me most about the film was the very last scene--I hope I do not have this wrong--where President Eisenhower is speaking, and he says what is important about this country, what is wonderful about this is that we have the writ of helicopter, and the writ of helicopter is there as a historic safeguard. And I thought immediately to the hearing that this Committee had and the work that I have been doing, and it is why I am looking forward to testifying and answering questions this morning. I will spare the previous introduction. I am not a philosophical opponent of the death penalty. I have recommended seeking the death penalty dozens of times. I have less patience with delays than anybody that I know, and I am fully in favor of expedited proceedings in my professional life and in my personal life. I think that the substitute bill that we are looking at now does eliminate some of the problems that I identified in my last testimony. I still think that there are provisions of this law that are very problematic. I don't think in 2 minutes and 30 seconds in my opening statement I will be able to address them, but perhaps I can explicate them. I am most concerned about-- Chairman Specter. Mr. Waxman, take the time you need. We will give you extra time. Mr. Waxman. I appreciate it. I am most concerned about Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10. But my overriding concern with this is I think that this legislation in very large part represents a good-faith effort to address problems that have not been documented to exist in any systematic way, and based on my experience and looking at the data that I have looked at, do not, in fact, exist in any serious way. And I wouldn't be as troubled by that alone as I am by the fact that I know that, if enacted, these provisions will deny relief and, indeed, will deny access to the courts to people whose fundamental constitutional rights have been violated, some of whom are actually innocent. Now, I will be talking a little bit about innocence in the course of my remarks because it is a prominent feature in a number of these provisions. Let me just turn first to Section 4 of the bill, which deals with procedural default. Procedural default is a doctrine that provides that even if there is a constitutional violation, if there was an adequate and independent State ground for the court to rule, that is sufficient, and Federal habeas corpus courts in an exercise of federalism don't have the authority to second-guess what the highest court of the State has said on an adequate State ground justifies the detention. There was a doctrine in place for many, many years called ``the deliberate bypass doctrine'' that basically precluded people, prisoners, from coming to Federal court if they had deliberately bypassed their remedies in State court. In 1979, I think it was, the Supreme Court in a landmark decision issued by Chief Justice/then Justice Rehnquist, Wainwright v. Sykes, established a very, very high bar to overcome a procedural default--that is, an instance in which an adequate and independent State ground had not been availed. And that is the so-called cause and prejudice test. The cause and prejudice test of Wainwright v. Sykes is one of the most settled doctrines in the law, and recognize that in habeas corpus law there is almost nothing that is settled. It is the most esoteric--it has become the most esoteric area of the law in existence. The cause and prejudice standard, though, is a notable exception. It is settled. It is very stringent, and it only allows the most extreme cases through. In my testimony, my written testimony, I give the example of Strickler v. Greene, a Supreme Court decision a few years ago where the Supreme Court found cause--that is, there had been an egregious--there had been a very good reason for the failure to bring to the State courts a meritorious constitutional claim, but because the Supreme Court wasn't satisfied beyond any reasonable--to a reasonable degree that the constitutional error would have changed the death sentence, defendant's sentence, it denied relief. It wasn't enough under cause and prejudice to show that there was a constitutional violation, and there was very good cause not to have brought it to the attention of the State courts. But, nonetheless, he was denied relief and executed. Now, Section 4--I should say also that the cause and prejudice standard was so settled and, in my opinion, so satisfactory to both the community of prosecutors and, I suppose, the courts, that it wasn't even considered in the context of amending AEDPA that any change be made in the procedural defaults rules. There wasn't a procedural default provision in AEDPA because, in my experience, the procedural default standard under Wainwright v. Sykes is so stringent that there aren't any systematic abuses. Now, Section 4 of this bill does alter the cause and prejudice standard. It denies Federal courts, strips Federal courts of jurisdiction of any case in which a State court, rightly or wrongly, post hoc or otherwise, says that there was a rule of procedure that was not complied with, except in an instance in which you can demonstrate not just cause and not just that the substance of your claim is not only correct but, if denied, would constitute an unreasonable application of settled Supreme Court precedent, but also that you can prove on a going-in basis that you had no involvement in the crime at all, not simply that you are legally innocent of the crime of which you were convicted, not simply that you are legally innocent of any other activity in connection with the crime, but that a court, but for the error, would have found that you did not participate in any way in the underlying offense. Now, let me address first whether there should be a safeguard for the rare case in which there is an excusable procedural default. The last time I was here, I discussed with the Committee the case of Lee v. Kemna. It is described at length in my written testimony. The court asked all of the other members of the panel with whom I was sitting whether in writing they could dispute that the Supreme Court had, in fact, decided what I decided. And I do not believe that anybody did dispute it. But that was a case in which in the middle of a trial in which the witnesses were sequestered, when the defense lawyer in the middle of the day came to call his witnesses, he discovered that somebody--likely, the court held, a court official--told his witnesses, who had come all the way from California to, I think, Missouri, that they would not be called that day and they could go home. He then asked for a continuance until the next day so that he could obtain his subpoenaed witnesses. The court denied it because the court had other pressing matters. He took an appeal, and on appeal, the court of appeals said, well, that may not have been a sufficient reason, but there is a rule in this State that all motions be in writing, and his motion to continue the trial because his witnesses had gone home was not in writing, and that is an adequate and independent State ground. And a substantial majority of the Supreme Court said that that rule, which was applied not at the request of the prosecution at trial and not by the trial judge at the time, but by the court of appeals after the fact, cannot eliminate the ability to get relief in Federal court. Similarly, another Supreme Court case, Ford v. Georgia, the rule that was allegedly defaulted was announced after the alleged default took place. Amadeo v. Zant, which I also discussed in my written testimony, a case in which there was deliberate, despicable misconduct by the State prosecutor with respect to the jury pool that was concealed, that was not revealed until discovery many years later in Federal court, there was a procedural default in that case because the claim was not raised in State court because it had been concealed. I do not believe that it is consistent with the Writ to strip Federal courts of jurisdiction to consider cases like that. And I particularly think that it is inadvisable in the absence of any demonstration that there really is a systemic problem with the cause and prejudice standard. Now, the innocence prong of this, the innocence exception that this substitute legislation includes, as I said, requires that you show up front not only that you have a claim so meritorious that denying it would be unreasonable in light of settled Supreme Court precedent and that you had sufficient cause not to have brought it to--not to have complied with the State rule, but that you had no involvement in the underlying offense. And I want to just spend a minute to express my understanding of what exactly that means. First of all, it means that there would be no sentencing errors at all ever considered by a Federal court in the context of one of these procedural defaults, whatever caused it, and that is because if the constitutional error related to the sentence, that, ipso facto, deprives you of the ability to show that you had no involvement whatsoever in the underlying offense. Now, it may well be that we as a society have little sympathy for claims about whether a sentence was too long or not too long, or too long because of constitutional error. But a fundamental premise of our capital punishment system is that not everybody who is guilty of a crime deserves to be executed. We have a whole edifice that the Supreme Court has said the Constitution requires to separate out among those premeditated murderers those who are, as the court has said, ``the worst of the worst.'' And yet there would be no sentencing claims allowed under Section 4 because you need as a threshold matter to prove that you had no involvement in the conduct that formed the basis of the crime. A good example would be, let's say, the prosecution seeks the death penalty against somebody under Edmonds v. Florida because they were the trigger man of a cold-blooded murderer. And Edmonds says that if you are actually the trigger man, you can get the death penalty. Well, let's assume that there is egregious Brady violation that is discovered, as was the case in Banks v. Dretke, decided by the Supreme Court 2 years ago, in Federal court because the evidence had been concealed by the prosecutor in State court, which did not order discovery. So you come to Federal court, you are in Federal court, and you say, look, there is irrefutable evidence that was in the prosecutor's file that I did not pull the trigger, but you cannot prove that, consistent with principles of felony murder, that you either were not there or out in the getaway car or something like that, you cannot get that--you cannot get in the door. The Federal court does not have jurisdiction to consider that claim. Now, let's look at guilt/innocence, which is, you know, after all, the main event here. Innocence claims do not arrive in Federal court as fully formed claims of actual innocence. What happens is that the fear here is and what habeas corpus protects is instances in which there is something fundamentally unfair, not just somewhat unfair but constitutionally unfair in the procedures that took place. There are instances, there are many instances in which as a result of those fundamentally unfair procedures, innocent people are convicted even though they do not have fully formed proof of their innocence at the outset. There are many, many instances in which in Federal habeas corpus and in State habeas corpus prisoners prevail on claims of fundamental constitutional violations and are thereafter, when the violation is corrected, acquitted or exonerated. There was a report in yesterday's newspaper about a case in Philadelphia in which this happened. But looking at reported cases, Kyles v. Whitley, which I mentioned in my testimony, there was--in Federal court it was discovered that there was an egregious Brady violation with respect to the testimony of the prosecution's main witness. The writ was granted. He was retried. Three times the prosecution failed to obtain a conviction when-- Chairman Specter. Mr. Waxman, how much longer do you think? Mr. Waxman. I can be shut off at any time, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. No, I do not want to. I think what you said is very informative, and you are still on Section 4. [Laughter.] Mr. Waxman. I want to go back to Section 2 and 3. Chairman Specter. Well, I think you made a pretty good case as to Section 4, and I would urge you to move to a new section. But you spent a lot of time with staff and you have a lot to say, and I think we want to hear it. Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman? Chairman Specter. But we want to get some idea as to how long it will take. Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder, if I might, as I am listening to this, I reread my statement, and I think the Senator from Arizona makes a good point. This is probably going to ruin his reputation back home if he finds out that I might agree with him on something. I would change my sentence to read--and ask consent to change it in the statement so that the statement reads, ``This bill remains a solution to an unproven and largely non-existent problem, and no amount of tinkering would solve that''--which is my feeling. I would strike the words ``crude and partisan.'' The Senator from Arizona is correct. Senator Kyl. I appreciate it. Chairman Specter. Thank you for that, Senator Leahy. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I will just take a few minutes on each of the remaining sections, and I invite questions. I am really only here to answer the Committee's questions, not to make a stump speech, and I realize that-- Chairman Specter. It is not a stump speech. It is very profound, and you are obviously very knowledgeable, and it is very helpful. Senator Leahy. Trust me, we know stump speeches up here. [Laughter.] Mr. Waxman. My daughter was very fond of saying, before she went off to be an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, her stump speech was that there is nothing more dangerous in this country than her father in front of a microphone without a red light. [Laughter.] Mr. Waxman. Which is what they have in the Supreme Court that tells you to stop. I was, you know, very respectful of the timer in front of me until the Chair gave me permission that he probably did not realize would have such a dramatic effect. But let me just trip through my objections on--my concerns about the other provisions. Chairman Specter. Go ahead. Mr. Waxman. And then solicit questions. Much of what I had to say about Section 4 on procedural default is also the case for Section 2 on exhaustion of mixed petitions. In my written testimony, I went through how the exhaustion doctrine is one of timing and not one of extinction or not one of preclusion, but this exhaustion remedy does change that. In a perfect world, all constitutional claims would be raised in State courts before they go to Federal court. That is the comity rule that the exhaustion doctrine respects. And in very large part, the existing doctrines with respect to requirements for exhaustion and the requirement that mixed petitions be dismissed has enforced that rule, but we do not live in a perfect world. We have to have a failsafe for those instances in which there is a darn good reason why there has not previously been exhaustion. We have a world in which many, many, many, many, many prisoners appear pro se. Many of them who do not appear pro se have lawyers that can only be charitably called incompetent. We have instances--Brian Stevenson was here last time talking about instances in which State courts on post-conviction have refused to rule for years and decades. And we have instances, regrettable but documented, in which an errant prosecutor will stonewall legitimate discovery requests, the State court will not order it, and like in Banks v. Dretke, the information only comes out in Federal court. And there are plenty of instances--Mr. Eisenberg talked about stay and abey and how it is abused. Well, first of all, the Supreme Court just decided a case this year, Rhines v. Weber, that puts very stringent restrictions on the ability to go back and exhaust unexhausted claims. And we have not seen-- there is no reason to think that that will not solve whatever problem exists. But more to the point, there are many instances in which it is the State, not the defense, that in the instance of an unexhausted claim, with good cause, the State refuses to waive and insists that the prisoner go back into State court and exhaust. And in Pennsylvania itself, the case of Aaron Jones, which Mr. Dolgenos testified about last week at the House Judiciary Committee hearing, and the Brinson case, which I can discuss in detail and I am sure Mr. Eisenberg is familiar with, are instances in which, in one case a Brady violation, in another a Batson violation, came to light while in Federal court. The defense in the Jones case by defense counsel and in the Brinson case by a pro se prisoner implored the prosecution and the Federal court not to send them back to what the prisoner in Brinson called ``the morass'' of the State post- conviction proceedings, but just address the merits. And in both instances, it was the prosecution that insisted on stay and abey so that there would be exhaustion. But, in short, I don't think that there is, particularly in light of Rhines v. Weber, a significant problem or a problem of any dimensions at all with abuse of the existing law on the exhaustion requirement on mixed petitions, and all of the things that I said about the no-involvement standard of innocence, proof requirement up front, also apply here. Chairman Specter. Mr. Waxman, are the other sections covered in your written statement? Mr. Waxman. Yes, they are. Chairman Specter. I think we will move on then. Thank you very much for that. [The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. We are going to come back to you, Mr. Eisenberg, before questions to give you a chance to offer any comments or rebuttal to what Mr. Waxman has said. Our next witness is Judge Howard McKibben from the District of Nevada, appointed to the Federal bench in 1984, had served on the State court for 7 years before that, was a district attorney, a very outstanding academic record. Thank you very much for joining us, Judge McKibben, to testify on behalf of the Judicial Conference. STATEMENT OF HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL-STATE JURISDICTION, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, RENO, NEVADA Judge McKibben. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, and members of the Judiciary Committee. It is always a little daunting to go after someone like Seth Waxman. I must say, in court I am always delighted to have attorneys like Mr. Waxman appear. It makes the judge's job a lot easier when they can articulate issues as clearly and concisely as he does, and so I am delighted to join this panel. I will make my remarks brief, and I would ask that a copy, Mr. Chairman, of my remarks be made a part of the record. The Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction, which I chair, is one of the few committees of the Judicial Conference that includes State court judges as members. We have four chief justices of the supreme courts on our committee, and they have provided substantial input in connection with the issues that have been raised in the bill that is before you. Our Committee serves as a conduit for communication of matters of mutual concern between the Federal and State courts, and I have a special affinity for State courts, having formerly been a State trial judge and a State prosecutor. Let me say to the members of the Committee, the judiciary hears your concerns about delay in processing some habeas cases in the Federal courts. We support the elimination of any unwarranted delays in the fair resolution of habeas cases by State prisoners in the Federal courts. And, Senator Kyl, I know that you have provided the Committee with information that shows that some cases, capital cases, have been pending in the Federal courts for a significant period of time. Our preliminary statistical data--and we have requested that--does not appear to show a significant delay in the processing of non-capital cases. The information with respect to capital cases is, at this point, what I would call inconclusive and does, in fact, suggest the need for further analysis. As you know, the Judicial Conference has urged in previous communications to this Committee that a careful analysis be undertaken to determine if, in fact, there is any unwarranted delay and, if so, the causes of such delay before Congress further amends the habeas corpus statute. And I would indicate that it is very difficult--having handled capital cases and non-capital cases over the years I have been on the Federal bench--it is very difficult to take the statistics and look at them and say it took X number of months or X number of years to resolve this case and know what actually happened in the case as to whether or not what, in fact, happened was reasonable. Was it a reasonable period of time? Were there reasons for the delay and the ultimate disposition of the case? And that requires a fairly systematic review of those cases to make that determination. Second, the Judicial Conference opposes provisions in the Streamlined Procedures Act that would shift from the Federal courts to the Attorney General the decision for determining whether a State has met the requirements to opt in to the provisions of Chapter 154, those provisions that would impose specific time deadlines on the courts of appeals for deciding habeas petitions, those provisions that would change the procedures by which the Federal courts consider applications for expert services, and those provisions that would apply the provisions of AEDPA and the Streamlined Procedures Act retroactively. Third, with respect to limiting Federal court review of habeas claims, in September of this year, as you will recall, the Conference expressed its opposition to certain provisions of S. 1088, as adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, that have the potential to undermine the traditional role of the Federal courts to hear and decide constitutional claims, with appropriate deference to State court proceedings, and to prevent the Federal courts from reaching the merits of habeas corpus petitions by adding procedural requirements that would complicate the resolution of those cases and, in the opinion of the Conference, lead to protracted litigation. We recognize that this Committee has continued to make changes in the legislation through the adoption of a second substitute amendment in October. We are, however, concerned that the legislation may still limit Federal court review of meritorious constitutional claims inappropriately. Fourth, the October substitute recasts the cause and prejudice standard defined and developed by the Supreme Court-- and as Mr. Waxman has eloquently indicated to you, that is an extremely well-settled doctrine in our jurisprudence, which we rely on all the time. And that has been in existence, I think for about 27 years, 28 years. And it recasts the cause and prejudice standard in mixed petitions, procedurally defaulted claims, and amendments to claims in a manner that we have not seen before. These revised standards have never before applied in this manner. They create complexity and could further delay, not expedite, the resolution of Federal claims. And I think that is an important point. Complying with such standards may be even more problematic in cases where the applicant did not have counsel in the State post-conviction proceeding. Now, the October substitute would redefine prejudice, as we understand it, as a ``reasonable probability'' that, but for the alleged error, the fact finder would not have found that the applicant ``participated in the underlying offense.'' The reference to the underlying offense changes the focus of the traditional role of habeas from whether an error infected the entire trial, with error of constitutional dimension--and not every error clearly would be cognizable, but those that infect the entire trial with error of constitutional dimension are--to whether the error would cast doubt on the claimant's participation in the underlying offense; not just if the individual is guilty of the underlying offense. Constitutional errors that affect whether a person should be sentenced to death may not be reviewable under such a standard because such errors may have no bearing whatsoever on whether the applicant participated in the underlying offense. There is a similar concern with the modification of the actual innocence standard. As with the revised cause and prejudice standard, this provision could foreclose review of sentencing errors, and it appears that it would and, thus, is inconsistent with Conference policy. Fifth, the October substitute takes the restrictive standards of Section 2254(e)(2) and for the first time, as we understand it, uses them to limit a person's access to Federal court review of unexhausted and procedurally defaulted claims and amendments to petitions in capital cases under Chapter 154. And, finally, AEDPA already sets a very high bar when Federal courts consider claims that a habeas petitioner failed to raise in State court, and, as such, appropriately recognizes the deference that Federal courts should give to State court proceedings. In just the past 3 years, the Supreme Court has considered over 19 cases addressing issues raised by the passage of AEDPA, and that is a very large number of cases for the Supreme Court to consider and decide. Nine of those decisions were handed down this past year. Only now is the law becoming somewhat settled with respect to AEDPA. If Congress substantially revises the procedures in habeas corpus cases, there is a concern that it most certainly would invite a new round of litigation on statutory and constitutional issues, complicating and protracting, not expediting, we believe, the consideration of habeas petitions in Federal courts. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the invitation to address the Committee. I know that the members of the Committee and the judiciary share a common goal to preserve and protect the fundamental fairness and integrity of our criminal justice system. I thank you very much for your time. [The prepared statement of Judge McKibben appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Judge McKibben. Mr. Eisenberg, would you care to offer some additional comments at this time in response to what either Mr. Waxman or Judge McKibben said. Mr. Eisenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of points, if I may. The argument is made that the existing cause and prejudice standard for procedural default is so settled and so satisfactory that Congress did not even consider a need to address the issue when it passed AEDPA. And it is true that AEDPA does not address that issue. The problem is what has happened since AEDPA. Since AEDPA tightened up on other aspects of habeas review, cause and prejudice and procedural default has been used as a means of essentially circumventing those limitations. Now, as to the cause and prejudice standard itself, our problem is that we cannot even get to it in some many cases because the doctrines in habeas corpus allow the Federal court first to decide under the label of ``adequate and independent'' whether the State court rule should be given any effect at all in Federal court. And unless and until you pass that threshold, the court in Federal habeas review does not even have to consider cause and prejudice. So that is our initial roadblock and one of the main things that the current legislation addresses, is the power of the Federal court to simply throw out the State procedural rule without any reference to cause and prejudice, to simply say it does not count. And when the court says that, it is not just for that case. It is for all cases to which that rule might apply. We have in Pennsylvania, for example, enacted a post- conviction review statute that had some similar provisions to the AEDPA. We did it around the same time, guided in part by the provisions in AEDPA, and we imposed a 1-year deadline for filing State post-conviction petitions. We made it clear at the beginning of the statute that it applied to all cases, capital and non-capital cases. The Third Circuit has held that that statute was not an adequate ground for finding petitions filed more than a year to be untimely, and the reason it was not is because the statute did not specifically--the courts had not yet said whether that statute really meant what it said or whether the courts might create exceptions to the statute along the lines of some of their previous court-made doctrine. So even a statute whose words were not in any way in dispute, whose words were clear on their face--there was no dispute from the Federal court about the clarity of the language or the consistency of the application, once the issue reached the State courts, even that statute was not considered to be an adequate ground for a default because the Federal court said, well, there was all this time before the State courts first started interpreting it, and, yes, once they did, they applied it exactly as it was written, and they have consistently done so ever since; but, hey, how were we supposed to know what they would do until they addressed it? And so no procedural default there for an entire class of cases. All capital cases for several years--we do not know how many yet--for several years after the statute was passed, which were defaulted in State court because they were found untimely, are now being allowed review in Federal court, which will mean complete review, no deference standard to the decisions in State court because the State courts did not reach the merits. They applied their statute and found those cases time-barred. The Federal court is now going to get to review those cases despite the default. Now, when we get there and they apply that default, of course, it is going to apply to all sorts of claims. The argument has been made that the new statute will limit cause and prejudice to prejudice going to the underlying offense. Well, that is the argument that we keep hearing about the need for expansive Federal habeas corpus review, that we have to protect innocence. And, clearly, this standard does so. But let's keep in mind when it comes to considering limitations to the cause and prejudice standard and the innocence provision of those exceptions that we are talking about cases that were supposed to be defaulted to begin with. We are not saying that you cannot raise constitutional violations in Federal court. We are saying you have to follow the rules to do so. And the question in this area is the breadth of the exceptions that we will make if you do not follow the rules. The argument essentially is being made that we cannot limit those exceptions, that even if you default your claims in State court, even if you try to get into Federal court through one of these exceptions, you should have essentially as broad review as if you had not defaulted your claim in State court. And that is not going to ensure any sort of compliance with the procedural rules that the habeas corpus statute establishes and that the courts have been developing for decades, even before AEDPA was passed. There have to be narrower standards for the consideration of claims that are not really properly before the Federal court at all than for those claims that are in order to hope for any sort of compliance by the petitioner in State court with the rules that we are entitled to apply. The Federal courts have their procedural rules, we have our procedural rules, and they are entitled to deference in Federal court as well. And I think that that is what the case law and what this legislation tried to establish. Let me speak very quickly to the Rhines point because I think that is a significant one, the recent case concerning stay and abey. The Supreme Court, because it is a court and not a legislature, established in Rhines exactly the kind of amorphous judicial standard that invites rather than limits further litigation. The lower courts are now going to have to go back and look at what Rhines said and they are going to have to decide, well, what is good cause in a particular case, what are the underlying merits of the claim, and a whole body of case law will be developed, and even once it is developed, there will still be litigation about the application of those amorphous standards to the facts of individual cases. That is exactly the kind of problem that we are talking about, is the existence of these kinds of generalized standards that require years, add on years to the process of litigating these claims. I would like to look in that respect at the bottom line with reference to the statistics that Judge McKibben mentioned from the Administrative Office of United States Courts. He referred to statistics that I believe are mentioned on pages 2 and 3 of the attachment to the letter that was filed with the Committee by the Judicial Conference in September of this year, and those statistics shows that over the last 6 years, the time to dispose of a capital case on Federal habeas corpus review has increased--increased--by 50 percent just over the last 6 years, and it has nearly doubled in the district courts. The time from filing to disposition in the district courts went from 13 months in 1998 to 25.3 months in 2004, and the time from filing of the notice of appeal to disposition of a capital appeal in the Federal courts of appeal went from 10 months in 1998 to 15 months in the year 2004. Now, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of those statistics, but I can certainly tell you that they are consistent with my experience and with the experience of my colleagues and that they show that the problem is not getting better as the result of AEDPA, as Congress intended. It is getting worse. The statistics also refer to delays in non-capital cases, and the point is made that according to those statistics, the disposition rates for non-capital cases have not increased in the way that they have for capital cases. What those statistics also show, however, is that the disposition rates for non- capital cases have not decreased despite AEDPA, despite the reforms that Congress put in place 10 years ago, there has been no movement, even in the disposition rates for non-capital cases. Now, AEDPA was supposed to help speed things up. Significant new provisions like the time bar, if fairly applied I think, should have reduced disposition times even for non- capital cases-- Chairman Specter. Mr. Eisenberg, how much more time do you think you need on this round? Mr. Eisenberg. Thank you for the opportunity, your honor, and that would be my last sentence. That times are increasing for capital cases, not decreasing for non-capital cases. Chairman Specter. Thank you very much. I am going to yield my opening round of questions. Senators have 5 minutes to question. I am going to yield my opening round of questions to Judge Kyl, and then we will come to Judge Leahy for 5 minutes, and then we will go back to Judge Kyl for five minutes. [Laughter.] Senator Kyl. STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am still enough-- Chairman Specter. I am just trying to promote you a little. Senator Kyl. Yes, and I appreciate that. I am still enough in awe of judges, I begin by, ``May it please the Court.'' I want to begin by saying thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for all of your cooperation and your staff's significant cooperation as well. They have spent hundreds of hours on this. To all three witnesses, very much appreciate your being here, and particularly, Mr. Waxman, with I suspect what you charge per hour. I was moved by your point at the beginning of your testimony that this is important work and you are willing to devote your abilities to this work. I appreciate that very much. For somebody like Mr. Eisenberg on the front lines of this battle to relate to us the kind of experience that you have I think is very, very important to our deliberations. Obviously, we have started a great debate here and I think it is a debate worth having. I think the fact that the debate has occurred has made the legislation better. I still think we have a problem to address, and in the relatively brief period of time that I have, I would like to begin with that, but preliminarily to make this general observation. It seems to me that what we have started here is a debate about those on one side who are really reluctant in any way to reduce the potential impact of a habeas petition on the one hand, and those on the other hand, Mr. Eisenberg, represented by what you characterized as your bottom line here, which is that because of the delays and the difficulties in dealing with all of these habeas positions, there has to be a difference between those cases in which the procedural rules in the State courts have been complied with and those that have not, and if that is the intent of our legislation here, to draw that distinction and try to speed that process. We had tried to do it in AEDPA, and I think the point is that with respect to capital cases at least the situation has gotten a lot worse. That is really what I would like to begin with and then ask for your comments. We have adduced evidence in previous hearings and in written submissions that relate nationally, but I just wanted to have you consider what the Arizona Attorney General's Office came up with since our last hearing. These are primarily capital case statistics, so they relate to our most serious issues. The Arizona study examined the appeals of all of the prisoners currently on death row, over 100. There are 76 capital cases pending in Federal Court, which represents over two-thirds of Arizona's pending capital cases. And although some were filed recently, over half of the cases have been pending in Federal Court 5 years or more. This is in Federal Court now. Of those, 13 cases have been pending for 7 years; 10 cases have been pending for 8 years; five cases have been pending for more than 15 years. I suspect that all of you would agree that that is far too long, that that suggests that something has to be done, not only for the citizens who have to pay for all of this, and the judges whose time it takes up, the prosecutors who are dealing with it, but also the victims. The study of the Arizona Attorney General's Office further found that only one of the 63 Arizona death penalty cases filed under the AEDPA standards has moved from Federal District Court to the Ninth Circuit, only one. That case has been in the Ninth Circuit for over 5 years. 28 of Arizona's capital cases have been pending in District Court for between six and 8 years. One of the Arizona death penalty cases has been on Federal habeas review for over 19 years. There is no justification for that. Two of the cases for over 18 years, one for over 16, one for over 14, another for over 12. Clearly there is a problem, so I think we have to decide how are we going to try to address the problem. Now, AEDPA tried to set up a method by which States, if they provide a lot of resources and good counsel, could presumably get around one of the issues which was the lack of good counsel, and therefore, could be held to a higher standard, and to compliance with State procedural rules. I would appreciate your views as to whether that general approach is generally a good approach? Is that an approach worth working on? Mr. Waxman, in that context, I think you may have misspoken slightly. You said that AEDPA did not seek to change Wainwright because it is so subtle, but in fact, Section 154 does adopt a more stringent test, does it not? In other words, that is what we are trying to get at, is if you really provide good counsel and other resources, then we are entitled to provide some limitations, some speedier access to the courts. I will just ask all of you to comment on what I have said here since I am done with this first 5-minute presentation. Please, all of you take a crack at what I have just said, which will enable you to also talk about anything else you probably wanted to talk about, starting, Judge McKibben, with you, and then Mr. Waxman and Mr. Eisenberg. Judge McKibben. Thank you, Senator Kyl. I appreciate the concern that you have expressed about the cases in Arizona. I know that there are cases in other districts where they have been on the dockets for a substantial period of time. This bill, as I understand it, addresses all habeas, capital and non-capital cases. As I indicated earlier--and the Conferences looked at this--there is no indication in the non-capital cases that there is any significant delay. I have heard Mr. Eisenberg refer to the fact that there should be a decrease, perhaps since AEDPA, in the time on non-capital cases for disposition, but an average 6-month turnaround time on non-capital cases is about as short a time as you are going to have in the Federal Court from the time of a filing. If the case is one where counsel will be assigned, to have the State come in, usually with some continuances and request an additional period of time to file a response, and for the Court then, if there is any discovery--normally you would not have discovery--but if there is some discovery, to dispose of a case like that on average in 6 months is even a faster disposition of the case than you would have in virtually all of your other civil cases. So it does not appear, when we look at the statistics, that there is any problem with respect to the timely disposition of cases when they are non-capital cases. And yet this bill applies to the non-capital cases too and sets some very severe restrictions on how a non-capital defendant is able to secure any relief, even in the sentencing area. Certainly if there are substantial problems in the trial process or selection of juries, then not being able to enter the Federal Court unless you meet this very high standard of showing that the factfinder would not have found the defendant participated in the underlying offense is a significant problem. Putting that aside and addressing the capital cases, the preliminary data that we have suggests, at least in some districts in the country, that there should be a systematic analysis of what caused delay. You cited one case that lasted for around 18 years without being disposed of. I do not know what the facts or circumstances of that case are. It would have to be analyzed. I know there are cases where people have been determined to be incompetent. That case remains on the court docket. It is not a closed file until there is ultimately a disposition, and you would not have a disposition if the individual is incompetent. I have no way of knowing if that is that particular case, but there are reasons why cases can remain on the docket a relatively long period of time. The Conference is recommending--and I think it is a prudent recommendation--that there be a study to determine whether there are systemic problems in our system or if there are some isolated cases which require better case management by the judge that handles the case. That basically, Senator Kyl, would be my response to the question. Until that study is undertaken and the facts are determined on an individual basis in those cases--and I think we can isolate those cases, whether they amount to 100 cases throughout the country or whatever, and closely analyze them and see the reasons for the delays--we can't draw any conclusions. Many of those delays are as a result of the case going back to State court for exhaustion. Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, since I have the next round, and I do want you to go ahead and run the clock and so on so I do not take too much time, but could I do a quick followup just on that last point? Chairman Specter. Certainly. Senator Kyl. Our bill sets only two limits. One is a 300- day limit on issuing Court of Appeals opinion after briefing is done, and then a 90-day period to rule on a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeals. Are those periods unreasonable in your view? Judge McKibben. The Conference has consistently taken a position that time limits should not be established. Senator Kyl. So no time limit would be reasonable then. Judge McKibben. I would not say that no time limit is reasonable. In the statute you already have provisions for expeditious consideration of habeas cases, and the court obviously considers those to be important cases. Senator Kyl. Thanks. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. I have never seen, or for that matter heard of the Arizona study. The statistics you cited were quite interesting, and on their face quite perplexing and troubling. For me the question that I really have is, why? What is it that is causing these cases to lag in State courts or in Federal courts, both the trial courts or the appellate courts. Senator Kyl. Excuse me. By the way, I will get that written study to all of you so you can take a look at it. Mr. Waxman. Very much appreciated. But I want to make a couple of points. First of all, the statute of limitations provision that AEDPA introduced, and Mr. Eisenberg referred to, and most of the provisions of the law that we are considering now, Section 2 and Section 4, for example, do not deal with how long cases pend in State courts or Federal courts. They talk about what claims Federal courts will be able to hear and how soon you have to get to Federal court, but they do not address the problem of lapses of time either in State court and Federal court, and you could have--and some partisans on each side have engaged in sort of a tit-for-tat debate about, well, you know, there is one State court case where there is a totally innocent guy and the State court has refused to rule for two decades. Brian Stevenson had some of them. There are other cases where we have heard about a Third Circuit case--I have forgotten the case, Abu somebody or other--where the Third Circuit just has not ruled in--there is not even a briefing schedule. We have a very large system and there are always going to be cases where delays are perplexing and inexcusable. The question is, is there a systemic problem, and if so, what is it? Now, if the problem is lapses of time in State or Federal courts, that ought to be addressed. It ought to be addressed either with rigid limits or with some sort of flexible limits or presumptions to get the courts to give the kind of priority that the Congress concludes these cases should have, with a reporting requirement to the Administrative Office if it is not decided, or to the Chief Judge, or something like that. But rules about procedural default and exhaustion and things of that nature do not address at all how long things take in court. In fact, they extend the amount of time that things take in court. I mean you have now provisions in this law that--I will go to the question of what the study shows about the length of time that Mr. Eisenberg was referring to. As Judge McKibben has explained, just in the last few years the Supreme Court has decided 19 cases interpreting resolving interpretive difficulties in AEDPA. While each one of those cases was proceeding, the lower Federal courts basically held their cases. The supreme courts granted cert on a question about what this language means and does not mean, and for the most part, those cases sat in the lower Federal courts until the Supreme Court decided it. So the period of time that the Administrative Office studied was a period in which there were almost two dozen provisions of AEDPA that were being--whose meaning was filtering its way through the Federal courts and was being resolved by the Supreme Court. I could go through this proposed legislation and identify phrases or tests or standards that are applied, for example, you know, under Section 5. The tolling provision relates to a properly filed State court petition. I do not mean to be a cynic, but I am rapidly approaching you 54th birthday and I have been in the practice of law a long time. There will be enormous litigation over the application of that new standard, a properly filed petition, to the facts of dozens and dozens of cases. And as sure as the sun sets in the west, there will be conflicting interpretations. It will go up eventually to the Supreme Court, and dozens and dozens and dozens of cases will be held up while the interpretive process of this body of the Congress's latest effort to inject new standards into an already complicated area gets resolved. I think that it is, Senator Kyl, with respect to counsel, I said before--and I know you are not only fishing for compliments for your State, but I think Arizona is the one State that has made a serious effort to comply with Chapter 154. It may have taken longer than it should have. The Ninth Circuit may or may not have been right in denying application of the benefits of that regime in the actual case in which it decided that the State had qualified. But what I find very telling is that Arizona really does stand alone. There really is no other State that has tried to avail itself of the Chapter 154 procedures. There were a couple of States early on which basically said, we either have counsel or we would like to have counsel, please allow us in, and those were plainly non- meritorious claims. The next closest State, it happens geographically, is Senator Feinstein's State, California. California instituted a mechanism. It tried to get this adjudicated. It tried to qualify through by means of a suit under Section 1983. It went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which about 10 years ago said, ``No, no. This has to happen in habeas.'' Since that time I am not aware of any effort by the State of California to improve its standards or to even raise this issue again. I am not criticizing California. California is the next best example, but I think before tinkering with Section 154, which I think was a good idea, I think that the Senate ought to look at why it is that States are not trying to do it. I suspect that what the data will show are that it is for either one or both of the following reasons: either because the existing doctrine, as narrowed by the Supreme Court prior to AEDPA and as changed by AEDPA, has proven by and large so satisfactory to prosecutors, that there is not really any great compelling--there is no felt need to try and qualify for the even stricter standards under Section 154, and there are many States in this union for whom qualification under 154 would be an amazing sea change, States where there is no system of indigent defense period, let alone in post conviction, and the steps that would be required to qualify seem like a bridge too far. So I certainly supported at the time and continue to support the principle that more stringent standards apply under Section 154 to States that actually provide competent counsel, but I do not think that it would be wise or that we have any data on which to tinker with Section 154, because thus far only one State has sought to comply, it has now been certified, and we do not really have--enough time has passed to know exactly how the Ninth Circuit in particular will treat Arizona now that it has in fact complied. Judge McKibben. This is an important issue and I do not know if I could have just two minutes to followup on the opt-in provisions under 154, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. Please go ahead, Judge McKibben. Judge McKibben. I did secure yesterday some preliminary statistics in this area because I was trying to determine what other States have taken the major steps that Arizona has, as Seth Waxman has already indicated, which I think are substantial. Not many States have done that and come as close I think as you can come to qualifying in the Spears decision and probably will in the future. But it appears that there have been five States that have reasserted their entitlement to opt in to 154, and Arizona is one of them, and Maryland, Ohio, Florida and Mississippi. There have been 12 States that have been denied certification, but they have never reapplied for certification since the denial, and 19 States have not ever applied for certification or opt-in under 154. That would seem to suggest that the mechanism for opting in under 154 is one that the States are aware of, but by and large the States have not certainly made the effort that Arizona has to attempt to opt in. I think it is something that the Committee should study long and hard before making the decision to shift the responsibility for making the decision whether or not the State qualifies for opt-in status from the courts to the Attorney General as suggested in the statutory provisions. When the Powell Committee adopted the report through the Conference, there was certainly a role for the Federal courts to play at that time, and I do not think there is any empirical data to suggest that the procedure has not been appropriately considered by the courts in resolving whether or not a State has appropriately opted in. In fact, in the Arizona case it was conceded that they had not complied strictly with the provisions, and the question was whether the Ninth Circuit properly determined that that should be waived. Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, on this point, because I have to leave, something has just been brought to my attention about California. Might I just mention it to the panel and see if the know about it? Chairman Specter. Yes, you may, Senator Feinstein. And I know the sequence is unusual and causing concerns all around. So I am going to ask the panel to be very brief in responses so we can move to Senator Leahy and the other members. Senator Feinstein. And I will try and be very brief. It is my understanding that there is now a joint task force between the Ninth Circuit and the State of California that is trying to address these issues, and that a disproportionate number of capital habeas cases involving delays in over a decade come from California. What I am told is that all habeas cases are automatically heard by the California Supreme Court. However, due to the volume of cases before it, the Court does not have time to grant hearings, and generally issues what is called a ``postcard denial.'' Consequently, when cases are appealed to the Federal Court there is no record to rely on, and the judges have to start over from scratch, causing delays and often requiring hearings at that point, which take additional time. Is this in fact correct to the best of your knowledge? Would that account for the problem in these capital habeas cases from my State? Judge McKibben. Well, from speaking with my colleagues in California and particularly in the Central District, the Northern District and the Eastern District, where they have the great volume of those cases, there is every indication that when the case is filed in Federal court that a great deal of the record may have to be developed in the Federal court, and that is extremely time-consuming if those matters are not fleshed out by the California Supreme Court. Now, whether or not there is an intermediate Court of Appeals that resolves some of those issues, I cannot say because I am not that familiar with the California practice. Senator Feinstein. Because I do not know whether the long cases that Senator Kyl is referring to are essentially California cases, the 20-year case, but there should not be any excuse for that in my view. And if these are the postcard denials that then do not have a record, and then go to Federal court, and then the whole thing has to start again because the State court is not doing what it should, we should know that and correct it. Judge McKibben. Having the records in Federal court--you know, as a judge, it is extremely important to have that record and have it early. We have a case in Nevada--and it is partly out of California--in which the record is over 400,000 pages. Senator Feinstein. If anybody has anything to add to that. But I am going to look into that one aspect with the California Court, Mr. Chairman, because this is kind of news to me. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Senator Leahy. Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, might I say a word about the postcard denials very briefly? Chairman Specter. Yes, you may. Mr. Eisenberg. I appreciate it. Thank you. Chairman Specter. To the extent you can make it brief, we would appreciate it. Mr. Eisenberg. Senator, my understanding is that in many of those cases of postcard denials, the reason for the denial is essentially a procedural default, a timeliness ruling. And when the case gets to Federal court they should not be starting over from scratch. They should be applying the default. And much of the litigation in California cases, I believe, has been the result of the failure to apply those defaults. When the case gets to the California Supreme Court, moreover, it has already been typically through other courts along the way up, both on direct appeal and collateral review, and therefore, there is going to be some disposition of those claims either on procedural grounds or substantive grounds from the lower courts that the Federal courts should be looking to and deferring to to the extent that they can reach those claims at all. I think the delays that we are talking about, the time periods that you are hearing, are the time from when the case gets to Federal court, not the time that it is spending in State court, and I think that those delays are difficult to explain. Chairman Specter. Senator Leahy. Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I would ask first to put in the record a number of things, including the ABA's concerns about this. Chairman Specter. Without objection that will be made a part of the record. Senator Leahy. Judge McKibben, you will not recall this, but we met not long after you became DA of Douglas County? Judge McKibben. That is correct. Senator Leahy. I was out there for a prosecutors' meeting. I had hair then. So did you. You still have yours. [Laughter.] Judge McKibben. Barely. Senator Leahy. Mr. Waxman, I found out this morning that a modified version of a provision from this bill has been slipped into the current draft of the House-Senate Conference Report on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization provision. The reason for some of the surprise is neither the House nor the Senate PATRIOT bill, actually neither the House nor the Senate has ever passed this provision in any form. As it appears in the Conference report which we just got a couple of hours ago, the provision would shift from the Federal courts to the Attorney General of the United States, the responsibility for determining whether the State has established a qualifying mechanism for providing competent counsel to indigent defendants in State post- conviction proceedings, and that would be subject to review by the D.C. Circuit. The Attorney General would write the rules for certifying State systems. States need only substantially comply with the statutory requirements in order to qualify. Once a State has been certified, and that certification has been upheld in appeal, there is no apparent way for a State to be decertified, even though they may decide to totally change their system after getting certification. I had my staff provide you with a copy of the new proposal. I think you have probably had about 5 minutes to take a look at it. Assuming the proposals I described, what do you think of that? Mr. Waxman. Well, I would not favor it. I did get a copy of it just before the hearing started, and I cannot say--I am not an expert at reviewing legislation, and I cannot say that I completely understand what the text provides. But my views about-- Senator Leahy. I am not asking you to go into the question that was not considered by either the Senate or the House. It was just kind of slipped in in the middle of the night by-- Mr. Waxman. I think that it is dismaying to include in legislation dealing with the very serious problem of terrorism, a provision that, at least so far as I understand it, has nothing to do with that, and that was not considered by or voted out of either of the two Judiciary Committees that have now held two hearings on this procedure. And so on procedural grounds I guess I am sort of surprised about this. If I understand the legislation, it would allow the Attorney General of the United States, not only to make the decision about whether States qualify for Chapter 154, but also to set the standards that constitute qualification, whereas now in AEDPA, AEDPA actually includes statutory standards. I certainly do not think that the statutory provisions themselves for qualification ought to be changed. I cannot even imagine what the reason is why the Attorney General would have authority to do that. But I also think that it is a very grave mistake and an unwarranted act to take the process of certification, which is essentially an adjudicative process, away from an Article III court and give it to somebody who, as I said in my written testimony, whoever the Attorney General is, whatever their views are, is in the context of an adversarial system of criminal justice is a prosecutor. Senator Leahy. Correct. Mr. Waxman. If I could just finish my sentence. That is why, for example, when the Justice Department participates in State habeas litigation in the Supreme Court, it either participates on the side of the prosecution or it does not participate at all. I am not aware of any instance--there may be one, but it would certainly be the exception that proves the rule--where the Attorney General comes into Federal courts in State habeas proceedings on behalf of the prisoner, but there are many instances in which I and other Solicitors General have filed amicus briefs in support of the State. So I just think there is an appearance issue, and since there is no evidence of any State that has made a serious effort to try to get into Chapter 154 other than Arizona, which has been certified, I just do not think there is any cause to turn this decision over to the Attorney General. Senator Leahy. Mr. Eisenberg suggested that the cause and prejudice test was satisfactory before AEDPA was enacted, but has become a problem since then. Do you agree? Mr. Waxman. I know of no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. I mean he is referring to a particular, I guess, Third Circuit decision. I am not familiar with the decision. I certainly could look at it, but the notion that the cause and prejudice standard has now risen like Frankenstein from the crypt to become a problem as a result of AEDPA is a perplexing one to me. I do not think that the data would bear that out. Senator Leahy. I will set an example by being the only person who sticks within their time, and I will submit my other questions for the record, Mr. Chairman, but I do have a number of questions. Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. Senator Kyl, would you object if we went to Senator Feingold next? Senator Kyl. No, not at all, but I do have some-- Chairman Specter. We will come back to you. Senator Feingold. STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank you for holding this hearing today on the Streamlined Procedures Act. I am always sincere when I thank you, but I am especially sincere about it today. You and others on the Committee have been working over the past few months to make changes to this extremely complex bill, and I am gratified that we have witnesses here today who can help us better understand the bill in its current form, as well as the very serious implications this bill could have for our criminal justice system. Mr. Chairman, I think this is how the Senate should work. Before we proceed to report out complex legislation like this bill, we must be fully armed with the facts needed to evaluate it and allow us to make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Senate, and this hearing is an important step in that process, and again, I thank you for your willingness to do it at a convenient time. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my full opening statement be placed in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Feingold. Mr. Waxman, let me begin by following up on Senator Leahy's question. I am trying to better understand this habeas language that we understand could be in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization Conference Report. As I understand it, it allows the Attorney General to certify a State to opt in to Chapter 154 with D.C. Circuit review of that certification. As I read the provision, the opt-in procedures would go into effect as soon as the AG certifies the State before the D.C. Circuit reviews it. Is that correct, and is that not problematic? Mr. Waxman. I do not know if it is correct, but if it were it would be yet another reason why this legislation is problematic, as is, for example, Senator Leahy mentioned, that apparently the legislation does not include any provisions for decertification. Once you have got your delicatessen ticket you would be sort of in line forever, if I can really mangle a metaphor. Senator Feingold. Let me go to Section 5 of the bill that modifies the rule for tolling the 1-year statute of limitations on Federal habeas petition. Can you explain how that section would change current law and whether you think the change is justified? Mr. Waxman. I do not think that the change is justified, at least I do not know of any data or analysis that would suggest there is any reason to change it, but AEDPA, for the first time in our history, enacted a statute of limitations for access to Federal habeas corpus. Many people thought at the time that the whole notion of a statute of limitations was completely antithetical to the Writ of Habeas Corpus as it has been known and practiced ever since magna carta, but concerns about delays in getting to Federal court prompted the Congress to take this unprecedented step. Now, questions have come up since AEDPA was enacted about the 1-year statute and what days get counted and not counted. AEDPA has a sensible rule that while cases are pending in State courts, while State courts actually have the case, you cannot charge the petitioner, the prisoner with that time. But the question is what about the periods in between? I would have though that the law as the Supreme Court has explicated the 1- year provision under AEDPA is both clear and manifestly appropriate. The language that Section 5 now uses to alter the existing tolling regime is very unclear. It is not clear what is meant by the terms ``original write'' or ``properly filed.'' I think it is a mistake for it to limit the tolling periods for only for the filing, adjudication of Federal claims, rather than claims that are pleaded as State constitutional violations, but as to which evidence is subsequently revealed, constitutes a Federal constitutional claim. Here is my overriding point: I do not know, I simply cannot understand what this provision is trying to address. If it is trying to address anything other than the unique California system of successive original writs rather than the normal process of applying and appealing to a higher court. If it is trying to address something other than California, I cannot imagine what it is other than the doctrine, as Mr. Eisenberg mentioned, of equitable tolling. I do not know of any data--and I would be surprised to see it--that the principle of equitable tolling, that safeguard of equitable tolling, is in fact a systemic problem or is being abused in any way. Senator Feingold. And it applies in all cases, not just habeas cases, right? Mr. Waxman. Yes, it is what courts do. Senator Feingold. Then why would we want to make a special exception not to explain this general doctrine in habeas cases where individuals' lives and liberties are at stake? Mr. Waxman. I do not know, and I do not even know that there is a problem that it is seeking to address. Senator Feingold. Do you think Section 5 should be taken out of the bill? Mr. Waxman. I do, and I think even with respect to California--I litigated Carey v. Saffold, which is the Supreme Court decision that is held up as one in need of remedy. I just want to say that California has chosen its own system for how it wants to administer its post-conviction proceedings. It has done so fully cognizant of how long its own State chosen system takes, and if there was any doubt about it whatsoever, it certainly became aware of the habeas consequences after the Supreme Court decided Carey v. Saffold. Now, I understand that prosecutors in California object to California's system of post-conviction review, and I think actually if I were a prosecutor in the State of California, I would too. But I think that they are bringing their case to the wrong legislature. I think their case needs to go to the legislature of California which has made a sovereign choice. I view an attempt to sort of legislate these time limits for the special case of California to be profoundly inconsistent with principles of federalism. Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Feingold. Senator Kyl. Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to get into the Section 154, but I wonder, Mr. Eisenberg, if there is any response that you want to make to the last colloquy between Senator Feingold and Mr. Waxman. If so, please do at this time. Mr. Eisenberg. Thank you, Senator. I would like to discuss the notion that California has essentially chosen its own delay by virtue of its own State system. We live in a Federal system where the States get to choose varying ways of approaching these problems. It is not supposed to be the job of the Federal habeas corpus statute to mandate uniformity among the States in that regard, but take a look at Pennsylvania, which has chosen exactly the opposite approach from California. We have a system where cases move through post-conviction review in State court very much like in the Federal habeas corpus area. We have a 1- year deadline which is modeled after AEDPA, and yet our Federal courts have refused to give effect to those State rules in the same way that the Federal courts in California have refused to give effect to the rulings that are occurring there. So the notion that it is because of the strange complexity of the California system that we have these delays in Federal court is false, and in fact, to look at the question more largely in terms of, for example, the counsel systems, if you look at the States that have done the most to address the counsel question--and by the way, my understanding is that Arizona still has not been certified despite its efforts in that regard, and that California was the State for whom the provision in Chapter 154 was most specifically crafted, and yet California has been held not to qualify. The States that have done the most in providing counsel at the post-conviction stage, the State post-conviction stage, which is where Chapter 154 focuses, I would suggest are actually the States that see the longest delays on Federal habeas corpus review. In other words, those delays are not shorter. The provision of counsel systems in States like California, Arizona, Pennsylvania, where we have had mandatory appointment of counsel for State post-conviction petitions since long before AEDPA, in those States and in other States in areas around the country, outside the areas where the counsel complaints are usually made, Mississippi and Alabama and all those sorts of places, those are precisely the States where some of the longest delays are seen on Federal habeas corpus review, and the States which supposedly have the worst system of counsel, tend to be States which see some of the shortest delays on Federal habeas corpus review. So the notion that there is some relationship between States not carrying the ball on their counsel systems and Federal courts having to delay on Federal habeas corpus, is false, it is exactly the opposite. Senator Kyl. It might be because there is good counsel in those States that are trying to comply. Just one quick question, Mr. Waxman, and then a more complicated question. I am going to ask them both at the same time, so you are answering here. I referred before--I asked Judge McKibben, but I did not ask you--about the time limits that we include in the bill, the 300-day limit on issuing Court of Appeals opinion after briefing is completed and on the rehearing, a petition for rehearing, 90 days to rule on a petition for rehearing. You talked about the fact it would be good to have a study to see really why delays were occurring, but that if it were-- that it may well be appropriate to set limits. Would those limits be appropriate, in your view? And then I am going to ask you one more question on my time. Mr. Waxman. Is the next one the complicated one? Senator Kyl. It is actually not, but it takes just slightly longer to ask. I think that what Mr. Eisenberg just said about the Ninth Circuit decision in Spears v. Stewart is correct, that is to say that even though theoretically Arizona qualified in this one particular case, the benefits, the timelines were not allowed to be applied in the case, and the dissent in the case, 11 of the judges in the full Ninth Circuit review of the case, said the qualification aspect of it is strictly dicta, they would not apply it. In fact they said, quote, ``To put it bluntly, neither we nor any other court is bound by the panel's advisory declarations in the case.'' It seems to me very uncertain that in any future case the Ninth Circuit, get two of the judges out of those 11 on your panel, clearly it is not going to qualify. In no case--in other words, have the benefits of 154 even been applied in Arizona, and so I am not nearly as sanguine as--well, I guess I should ask you how sanguine you really are that Arizona will receive the benefits of Section 154 in the future. Mr. Waxman. First of all, with respect to the specific time limits in the bill, since I do not--I really have no idea why these cases that have been pending for a long time, why they have been pending for a long time, and so I guess I would not want to say whether I think these limits are appropriate or not. I mean certainly 300 days after briefing seems appropriate, but I cannot tell you the number of cases that I have argued more than 300 days before I have gotten a decision both in civil and criminal cases. Senator Kyl. [Off microphone.] Mr. Waxman. Well, you know, I am an inpatient person and it is hard for me to remember these things unless I get a decision in real time. In terms of Arizona qualifying or not qualifying, on a theory that no good deed ever goes unpunished, I now feel like I am being called upon to predict, to evaluate the extent to which Arizona really has done what is necessary to qualify, or the extent to which maybe it has not. My understanding was that a majority of the court said that it had, and so long as it maintains a system that meets the AEDPA statutory standards, it darn well should continue to qualify. I have been handed a letter that the Public Defender's Office--very excellent as far as I can tell--Public Defender's Office in Phoenix submitted to Senator Leahy I guess last week, joining issue with Kent Ketane with whom I shared this table a few months ago, about the specifics of the cases, and I guess I would not want to cast my lot on the facts one way or the other. My only point here is I certainly do not think we know whether or not Arizona will justly get its reward under 154 for a system that it has appropriately put in place. We are trying to divine essentially like a Rosetta Stone from the one decision that Your Honor--you have been called a judge, I will call you Your Honor even though you do not have a robe on. We just do not know, and in any event, I really do think that it would be a bad idea both in practice and in public perception to give this decision to the country's chief law enforcement prosecutor. I just think that--I do not think the case has been made for why that would be an appropriate thing. Last, I realize I did not answer an earlier simple question that you asked me, which is, is it not the case that there is no cause and prejudice standard under Chapter 154, which is sort of viewed as this sort of stump-the-witness question since for the life of me, I cannot remember what is and is not in 154. But now that I am looking at Section 2264(a)(A), I think the answer is that it does have a cause standard, but it does not even--if you meet the cause standard, you do not even have to prove any prejudice. Now it is a strict cause standard, but it does not have prejudice requirement, much less the, quote, ``actual innocence or no involvement standard.'' I could be wrong, but that is the way I read it. Senator Kyl. I would want to take that further. Mr. Chairman, I just make this point, since Mr. Waxman concluded his earlier answer with something which is pregnant with dispute. The exact reason why it makes sense to have the Department of Justice determine the compliance with the statute, to be reviewed by a Federal court, is because otherwise you have an ad hoc determination and precisely the issues raised by the Spears case, where the court says, gee, in this case it appears that you had a good set of counsel and so on, but we are still not going to apply it, and the other judges say, and we are not bound by this in any future case. You never have resolution. No one can rely upon the system either qualifying or not. You always know you are going to have a case made at the end of the day before a judge that the provisions cannot apply because the procedures were inadequately established, or the program was inadequately established, or operated. It seems to me that having a determination made and then the court reviewing it in each case, is a better way to do it than having the court establish in each case whether you qualify preliminarily to even be able to argue that you can use these 154 expedited review standards. That is my answer to your point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. Mr. Waxman, my round of questioning has finally come, and I will begin with you, but with first an observation that it is not--and I know you are not representing to be an expert in Congressional practices, but it is not unusual to have something in a Conference report which is not part of the PATRIOT Act. We have quite a number of provisions which will be added to it. With respect to this issue about the appropriateness of the Attorney General's certification, the Innocence Protection Act has an Attorney General certification. Would there be any reason to approve that and not a certification here? Mr. Waxman. I am going to have to admit that I am not fully up to speed on the Innocence Protection Act and how the certification works. I was asked to give my opinion about some legislation that I only received after I was already sitting at this table and-- Chairman Specter. That is OK. You are not expected to be an encyclopedia, but there are quite a few provisions, and I have just consulted with my Chief Counsel, Mike O'Neill, who is a Professor, and the thoughts come to mind about preclearance on the Voting Rights Act, which is an adjudicatory function. There are some provisions under Environmental Protection where the Department of Justice performs adjudicatory functions. There are preclearances on mergers, antitrust, where there is an adjudicatory function. And I believe that the Innocence Protection Act is a pretty good example. I am trying to determine whether there is even a court review of that. But that is a legislative matter for us in any event. With respect to the issue of having the Attorney General make the determination, we are trying to move ahead on a question which is very problemsome we have not been able to answer. And I do think that Senator Kyl raises a very good point about what is happening to Arizona and could it be applicable to other States on an incentive to provide adequate counsel. The way the situation is now, it appears that other States are discouraged from doing so. But the provision which we are considering in the Conference report, nothing is final. It was not slipped in. It was something that I discussed yesterday with Senator Leahy, and I reminded him of that a few moments ago before he left. So that these disclosures are made, and you do not read about it after the fact. But it does require the statutory standards to be maintained, and it does have provisions for decertification. Judge McKibben, thank you very much for being here, for your participation. Notwithstanding the objections which you have raised to the pending proposals, do you think that the habeas corpus procedures ought to be modified by any new Federal statute? Judge McKibben. Well, I think that the Committee should move slowly in this area until there has been an opportunity to determine if there are in fact any type of systemic problems on delay. As I understand it, the principal reason behind this legislation is that there have been indications that in some districts, cases may have been delayed in the disposition process. And I think until the study is undertaken to examine that and review those cases, and see if in fact there is any type of systemic problem-- Chairman Specter. Do you know of no systemic problem yourself? Judge McKibben. I am not aware of cases that have been unduly delayed between the time that they come into Federal court and when they go back to State court. There may well be some delays in State court. That is inherent in the process that we have in federalism and comity. I know Seth Waxman indicated that there are occasions where the court asks the prosecutor if they are willing to waive unexhausted claim issues and not have them go back to the State court, have them resolved in Federal court, which certainly would expedite the process. But as long as we consider comity and federalism to be an important doctrine, which we certainly do, that is going to be inherent in the process. And, changing the statutory scheme and the standards for being able to secure review, I think is going to complicate the process. We are going to be litigating that for the next 8 or 10 years. Chairman Specter. Mr. Waxman, do you know of any provision that ought to be modified, if there is any useful addition by Federal legislation on this issue at this time? Mr. Waxman. I am not. One way, as I indicated at the outset, I think that it may well be that there are enduring problems either that have persisted notwithstanding the enactment of AEDPA, and/or problems that have been created, a level of unfairness that has been created by AEDPA, all of which would be appropriate for legislation, but I do again urge the Committee and the Congress to reach out to the AO and the Conference of State Chief Judges, and the Federal Judicial Center. Let's get the data and some analyses and identify what are the problems that have either on a systemic basis persisted and why, and what problems has AEDPA perhaps-- Chairman Specter. I am just asking if you know of any, and the answer is no. Mr. Waxman. No. Chairman Specter. Senator Feingold, I understand you want another round, which is certainly a more modest request than another hearing. [Laughter.] Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, you were kind to allow this hearing, and I am not even going to use a whole round. I just want to ask Judge McKibben a couple of questions. Chairman Specter. Do not forget the hearing before this too. Senator Feingold. I was happy about that hearing too. [Laughter.] Senator Feingold. I will try to be brief. Chairman Specter. You are recognized, Senator Feingold, for however long you like up to 5 minutes. [Laughter.] Senator Feingold. That is what I thought. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, the vast majority of Federal habeas cases are in non-capital cases, is that not right? Judge McKibben. That is correct, about 18,000 a year. Senator Feingold. And individuals who have been sentenced to a prison term or even life imprisonment really have no incentive to delay their legal proceedings, do they? Judge McKibben. Not to my knowledge. The sooner they can have the matter disposed of, particularly if it is favorable, the sooner they would be released if they are successful. Senator Feingold. So when we are talking about those kind of cases, there is not even any potential for the kind of dilatory tactics that some Senators are worried about, is that not correct? Judge McKibben. The Conference has expressed that in the communications I have provided to the Committee. That is correct. Senator Feingold. Judge, one of the big problems with erecting extremely complex procedural barriers in habeas cases, as we have talked about, is that many State defendants are navigating their State systems with no counsel or with an attorney who is overworked, underpaid and has no investigative resources. Does the statute here help to address in any way situations in which petitioners had no counsel or incompetent counsel in State court? Judge McKibben. That is one of the concerns the Conference has. It seems to me that part of the problem here is ensuring that there is competent counsel throughout the State process, and that would include post-conviction. If you have competent counsel, then it makes it much easier to navigate the post- conviction review in the Federal courts. A great number of the cases that we have, the petitioners do not have counsel, and the petitions get filed, and then you go through the amendment process where they have to refine it and we have to try to understand it. We have a special Habeas Unit in our court that works with that because they are able to look at those petitions, most of them, many of them handwritten, and attempt to discern exactly what it is that is being set forth. And then they have an opportunity for amendment. This bill does not really address that issue, and I think that is a core issue that has to be resolved before we will be able to expedite these cases in the future, more so than is being done now. Senator Feingold. I thank you, and I thank all the witnesses. And again I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold. Senator Kyl, you had the first word on this bill, and you may have the last word. Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is so much more we could talk about. I have got a whole series of questions here. I think probably that we have imposed upon our witnesses long enough in this open hearing. But I do think the process of working around a table has helped. And if we do not presume too much more on the experts' time here, I would hope for that opportunity in the future as well. We certainly have not rushed this now. I mean it has now been almost 6 months, and it is important business to take the time and do it right. I just hope that we can get beyond what I said in the beginning is undoubtedly a clash of two points of view that are difficult to reconcile about the use of habeas corpus, and perhaps also come to an agreement that if the statistics do reveal significant problems, particularly in the capital cases, as the Arizona study--which I will share with you--I think does, that armed with that information, we would be willing to make some changes statutorily. It is perfectly appropriate for us to legislate in this area. I think we all agree with that. And the notation that you made about the number of Supreme Court cases that have just now come to fruition and provided guidance is an illustration of the fact that if we get it right--it is a big ``if''--but if Congress gets it right in the way that it writes legislation, we can express intent and clear up issues and provide clear guidance across the board, and in many respects more specifically than the courts do it through the cases that may or may not come before them with particular fact situations they have and the like. It is hard to make law in this area through case law. And what we are trying to do here is be specific and precise and general in our application to everybody, rather than just having ad hoc determinations that may or may not have precedential effect, and that differ in facts, and therefore are of limited value in other situations, and which make it--I think Mr. Waxman, you said--one of the more esoteric areas of law that has a great deal of unsettled aspects to it. We are trying to settle some of those, and that is our intention here. So if you grant that the legislature has that potential if we do it right, I would hope you would continue to work with us to try to help us get it right so that we can provide more certainty and at least in States that are really trying hard. I mean Arizona spends like $60,000 on the average case, and on the difficult cases it is far more than that. I am quite familiar with the process. They are really trying hard and have been for a number of years. I think it is discouraging when other States see that it does not seem to have the intended effect in terms of the certification. so that is my plea. I again express my gratitude to all of you and the others who have helped to work on this, and hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can continue to try to work this issue. And thank you again. Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. Thank you, Judge McKibben and Mr. Waxman and Mr. Eisenberg. That concludes our hearing. [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]