PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 17, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Post Conviction Petitions: General Habeas Corpus Reform Title II: Special Procedures for Collateral Proceedings in Capital Cases Title III: Funding for Litigation of Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions in Capital Cases Title I: Post Conviction Petitions: General Habeas Corpus Reform - Amends the Federal judicial code to establish a one-year statute of limitations for habeas corpus actions brought by State prisoners. (Sec 102) Vests authority to issue certificates of probable cause for appeal of habeas corpus orders exclusively in the courts of appeals. (Sec. 104) Permits denial on the merits of habeas corpus writs notwithstanding the failure to exhaust State remedies. (Sec. 105) Establishes a two-year statute of limitations for habeas corpus actions brought by Federal prisoners. Title II: Special Procedures for Collateral Proceedings in Capital Cases - Sets forth special habeas corpus procedures in capital cases, including provisions regarding: (1) the appointment of counsel for indigent prisoners and limitations on claims of the ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel; (2) mandatory stays of execution, limits on stays of execution, and successive petitions; (3) time requirements and tolling rules for the filing of petitions; (4) evidentiary hearings, the scope of Federal review, and district court adjudication; (5) certificates of probable cause (inapplicable except when a second or successive petition is filed); (6) application to State unitary review procedure; and (7) limitation periods for determining petitions. Title III: Funding for Litigation of Federal Habeas Corpus Petitions in Capital Cases - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to require the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to provide grants to the States to support litigation pertaining to Federal habeas corpus petitions in capital cases.
People & committees
Rep. Hyde, Henry J. [R-IL-6] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 2, 2021. 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.4079 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.4079 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.4079 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.4079 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.