Senior Judges Urge Delay in Debate Over Executions

A group of 14 senior federal judges has urged the Senate and House to delay for at least six months any consideration of a controversial proposal to speed up court reviews of Death Row appeals.

The judges, a voting majority of the 27-member Judicial Conference of the United States, said in a letter transmitted to lawmakers Thursday that Congress should not act until the judicial body has a chance to debate and vote on the proposal.

Last month, former Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. proposed that Death Row inmates have a single six-month period in which to file appeals of their sentences in the federal courts. This would require an amendment to the federal Habeas Corpus Act.

Under current law, Death Row inmates can continue to file new appeals for years, often up until the moment of their execution.

Endless Litigation

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, along with other conservatives, has long contended that this system invites endless litigation and delay. While 2,200 prisoners sit on Death Rows nationwide, only 118 executions have taken place since 1976, Powell pointed out.

Though the key change suggested in the Powell report was merely procedural, it was immediately denounced by capital punishment foes because of its potential to greatly increase the number of executions. The American Civil Liberties Union called the Powell proposal “a rush to the gallows.”

Rehnquist, who chairs the Judicial Conference, appointed Powell and four other judges to prepare the recommendations. Upon receiving the recommendations last month, Rehnquist transmitted the report to the Senate and House Judiciary committees.

Rehnquist’s move reportedly angered some members of the Judicial Conference, who did not think that he should have sent the report to Congress before the conference officially votes on it. In a closed-door meeting last month, conference members voted to delay consideration of the Powell report until their next meeting in March.

The Powell report attracted unusual interest in the legal community, not only because of its potentially far-reaching recomendations, but also because the Senate already had pledged itself to act on whatever Powell proposed.

Last year, during debate on a massive anti-drug bill, Senate conservatives proposed their own changes in the Habeas Corpus Act to cut off prolonged appeals of death penalty cases.

They were dissuaded from acting then only after gaining a pledge, written into the law, that the Senate Judiciary Committee would conduct hearings on the Powell proposals 60 days after they were received.

But the Senate legislation did not make clear whether the 60-day period was to begin as soon as the Powell report was completed or after it had been officially approved by the Judicial Conference.

“The chief (justice) thought he was supposed to send the report over as soon as he received it. And that’s what he did,” said Supreme Court spokesman Toni House.

“The legislation itself is unclear,” said David Sellers, spokesman for the Judicial Conference. “Some of the judges thought it was better to wait. The chief thought he should transmit the report and let the Senate decide what to do with it.”