PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 25, 2025
Eric's Law
This bill modifies procedures with respect to capital sentencing hearings.
If a jury at a capital sentencing hearing does not reach a unanimous recommendation on the defendant's sentence and there is a motion by the attorney for the government, the court must order a new special sentencing hearing and impanel a new jury. If the new jury at the special sentencing hearing does not reach a unanimous recommendation on the defendant's sentence, then the court is prohibited from imposing a death sentence.
People & committees
Rep. Bresnahan, Robert [R-PA-8] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Jan 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1556 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1556 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1556 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1556 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-25 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
Eric’s Law would change federal sentencing proceedings involving the death penalty. For covered juries, failure to make a unanimous sentencing recommendation would require a new hearing with a new jury if the government’s attorney requests one. If the new jury also fails to make a unanimous recommendation, the court would have to impose a legally authorized sentence other than death.
This Act may be cited as Eric’s Law.
Section 3593 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
If a jury described in subsection (b)(1) or subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection (b)(2) does not, by unanimous vote, make a recommendation whether the defendant should be sentenced to death, to life imprisonment without possibility of release, or some other lesser sentence pursuant to subsection (e), the court, upon motion of the attorney for the government, shall order a new special hearing and impanel a new jury pursuant to subsection (b).
If the jury impaneled pursuant to paragraph (1) does not reach a unanimous recommendation as to sentence, the court shall impose a sentence other than death authorized by law.
The proposed new-hearing requirement would apply to juries identified in existing section 3593(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A)–(D). It would be triggered by failure to make a unanimous recommendation among death, life imprisonment without possible release, or another lesser sentence. A government attorney’s motion—a formal request to the court—would be required; once requested, the new hearing and jury would be mandatory.
If a jury described in subsection (b)(1) or subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection (b)(2) does not, by unanimous vote, make a recommendation whether the defendant should be sentenced to death, to life imprisonment without possibility of release, or some other lesser sentence pursuant to subsection (e), the court, upon motion of the attorney for the government, shall order a new special hearing and impanel a new jury pursuant to subsection (b).
The bill would also add the newly required hearing to the existing statutory grounds for selecting a sentencing jury.
(a) Additional ground for impaneling jury Section 3593(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking or at the end; and (2) by adding at the end the following: (E) a new special hearing is required pursuant to subsection (g); or .
If the newly selected jury also failed to reach a unanimous sentencing recommendation, the court would have to impose a sentence other than death that existing law authorizes. This provision would not require life imprisonment specifically.
(2) Imposition of sentence If the jury impaneled pursuant to paragraph (1) does not reach a unanimous recommendation as to sentence, the court shall impose a sentence other than death authorized by law.
The supplied January 10, 2026 action snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 25, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-01-10T06:57:47Z. 2025-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-25: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-25. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jan 10, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI