Justices Uphold Limit on Death Penalty Pleas

In a move that probably will speed up the rate of executions, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that state death row inmates who have appealed once and lost in the federal courts can go no further, except in the very rare case in which powerful new evidence comes to light.

The 9-0 decision upholds a critical part of a recently passed bill that seeks to end long-running appeals in death penalty cases.

Under the new law, death row inmates who have lost their appeals in a state court have one chance, and only one chance, to appeal in federal court.

As this year began, 3,046 inmates were condemned to death in the 38 states with capital punishment. California had the largest number, with 438. Texas stood second, with 394 inmates facing death.

While Friday’s decision is likely to affect immediately only a handful of inmates who have exhausted their appeals, the court’s ruling, combined with the stiff new federal law, could result in hundreds of executions a year.

Currently, despite strong public support for the death penalty, executions remain relatively rare. Last year, 56 murderers were put to death in the United States, by far the highest number in decades.

Five convicted killers facing execution--in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Texas--had their dates with death delayed while the court examined the new law.

The ruling is a major victory for state prosecutors, such as California Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, and a devastating blow for defense lawyers and death penalty opponents.

It comes as no surprise, however.

Over the last decade, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has insisted on limiting appeals in federal courts. In a series of opinions, the court has reinterpreted the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 to make it more difficult for inmates to file “second and successive” appeals in a federal court.

Last year, when the Republicans took control in the House and Senate, they made reform of the Habeas Corpus Act a top priority.

“Something is seriously wrong when a John Wayne Gacy murders 27 young boys and it takes 14 years from the time of his sentencing to the time he is executed,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), a sponsor of the bill.

The little-noticed bill, attached to anti-terrorism legislation signed into law by President Clinton on April 24, made four important changes, only one of which was tested and upheld Friday.

Under the other three:

* Federal judges were told they should not overturn murder convictions and death sentences unless they resulted from “an unreasonable application of clearly established law.” Where these judges previously had a free hand to oversee state cases, the new law said they would defer to state judges.

* Inmates were given only one year to file appeals in federal court after they lost in a state court. In the past, their lawyers often waited years until an execution date was set before filing an appeal before a federal judge.

* Federal judges were given one year to handle these appeals.

The case at issue Friday involved Georgia murderer Ellis Wayne Felker. On April 29, lawyers for Felker tried to stave off his pending execution by filing another appeal in a federal court in Atlanta.

Felker was convicted of murdering Joy Ludlam, a college student who was working as a waitress, and was sentenced to death. He maintained his innocence even though his hair and clothing fibers were found on her body.

Felker’s appeals were rejected in the Georgia court, and the Supreme Court denied an appeal in 1984. Since then, he has remained alive by filing new appeals in federal court.

This time, however, his appeal arrived five days after Clinton signed the new death penalty law, and the federal appeals court in Atlanta cited it as reason for dismissing his latest claims.

His lawyers filed an emergency appeal asserting that Congress could not block all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing such claims.

In a brief opinion (Felker vs. Turpin, 95-8836), Rehnquist said the Supreme Court certainly has the power to hear such a claim.

However, those appeals will be “rarely granted,” he said, and only when the inmate can “show exceptional circumstances,” such as powerful new evidence suggesting that he is innocent.

* CITADEL TO ADMIT WOMEN: The school acts after Supreme Court rules in another case. A4