High Court Acts to Speed Its Review of Capital Cases

Over objections from two justices, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday issued new procedural rules designed to speed the review of death-penalty cases.

The new standards require defense attorneys to ensure that habeas corpus petitions--in which condemned prisoners raise new issues that go beyond claims in their direct appeals to the court--are filed “without substantial delay.”

Until now, these secondary appeals, which raise such issues as inadequate trial counsel or newly discovered evidence, ordinarily have not been filed until after the defendant’s direct appeal has been decided by the high court. Under the new rules, both such appeals ordinarily will have to be filed at virtually the same time, enabling the justices to consolidate their review of the appeals.

The rules, announced in a statement by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, were issued in the wake of widespread concern among legal authorities over delay and uncertainty in the review of capital appeals. Lucas is co-chairman of an American Bar Assn. task force studying the problem in both state and federal courts.

However, Justices Stanley Mosk and Allen E. Broussard, two liberals on a conservative-dominated high court, dissented from the rules “on various grounds,” Tuesday’s cryptically worded statement said.

Mosk, it said, “particularly opposed” provisions that would impose new time standards requiring that, with some exceptions, habeas corpus petitions must be filed within 60 days after final briefs are due in the defendant’s direct appeal.

Broussard “primarily objected” to applying the new standards to pending cases, Lucas’ statement said.

The new regulations also drew sharp criticism from Michael D. Laurence, director of the Death Penalty Project of American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Laurence warned that requiring defense attorneys to investigate cases and prepare briefs in direct appeals and habeas appeals at the same time could jeopardize the quality of a defendant’s legal representation.

“There is a risk that innocent people may be rushed through the system because an appellate attorney was rushed through the system,” he said.

Michael G. Millman, director of the California Appellate Project, a nonprofit group that assists lawyers in capital appeals, said the new standards will be “helpful in clarifying the expectations” of defense counsel.

But Millman voiced concern about the fairness of applying to pending cases new rules that appear to represent “a significant break” from past procedures.

On a different front, state Deputy Atty. Gen. Dane R. Gillette expressed doubt that the new rules would weaken the quality of habeas corpus petitions. And he welcomed the new policy as one that would improve the speed and efficiency of the whole capital appeal process.

“We’re enthusiastic about the new rules,” Gillette said. “By combining the habeas proceedings with the direct appeal, we can get these cases through the state system much more expeditiously. . . . Overall, it will benefit the criminal justice system.”

The new rules say that habeas corpus petitions that are not filed within 60 days of final briefs in direct appeals can be denied as “untimely.” But the court will allow exceptions to the limit when defense counsel can show that petitions were filed within a “reasonable time” after they became aware of new facts or legal issues about a case.

The rules also require court-appointed counsel to represent condemned prisoners all the way through direct and secondary appeals in state and federal court and, if necessary, to seek clemency from the governor for an inmate who faces imminent execution.

The justices will consider replacing such attorneys “only if appropriate replacement counsel is ready and willing” to take over the job, Lucas said in the statement.