The reverberations of the bombing in Oklahoma City are being felt a year later in Congress, where legislation to counter international and domestic terrorism was recently passed. The President signed the bill into law as P. L. 104-132 on April 24. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 contains many provisions of interest to the federal Judiciary, in particular those dealing with habeas corpus reform and mandatory restitution. The following are highlights of the new law.
The habeas corpus provisions of the bill significantly change procedures for both state and federal prisoners. Both capital and non-capital cases are affected by provisions that, among other things, create one-year deadlines for filing habeas petitions, limit successive petitions, and generally restrict the review of state prisoner petitions if the claim was adjudicated on the merits in the state courts. A "certificate of appealability" also is required before a habeas petition by a state or federal prisoner can be appealed to a federal court of appeals.
The new law establishes special habeas corpus procedures for capital cases in states with mechanisms for the appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable litigation expenses of counsel in state post-conviction proceedings brought by indigent prisoners. The special pro- cedures also establish a 180-day time frame in which a petitioner must file a habeas petition; restrict the scope of federal review; limit successive petitions; and place time limitations on the district courts and courts of appeals to decide habeas petitions.
The mandatory victim restitution provisions of the bill require a federal court to impose mandatory restitution, without consideration of the defendant's ability to pay. This applies in any case in which an identifiable victim or victims suffered physical or pecuniary loss from an offense that is a crime of violence, an offense against property (including any offense committed by fraud or deceit), or a crime related to tampering with consumer products. Last year, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry (D. N.J.), chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Law, testified before Congress on the issue of mandatory restitution, pointing out that such legislation would replace a flexible system, based on common sense and judicial discretion, with an inflexible, mandatory system that would be extremely expensive to implement.
Another provision in the bill requires a federal trial court, in any criminal trial where the venue is changed from the state in which the case was originally brought and more than 350 miles from the location in which those proceedings originally would have taken place, to order closed circuit televising of the proceedings back to the original location. The televised coverage is to be provided for such persons the court determines have a compelling interest and who are otherwise-because of inconvenience or expense-unable to attend the trial.
The provision takes effect notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, although there is a sunset mechanism. The Judicial Conference may promulgate and issue rules, or amend existing rules, to "effectuate the policy addressed by this section." Upon implementation of such rules, the closed circuit television provision ceases to be effective. The cost of such closed circuit proceedings will be paid for by appropriated funds and/or through donations.
Among other provisions in the bill are those that: