Connecticut House Bill HB06087

Connecticut 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/25/11
• Refer: 1/25/11

Caption

An Act Concerning Post-conviction Procedures In Death Penalty Cases.

Impact

The implementation of HB06087 would significantly affect how post-conviction processes are handled in death penalty cases. By streamlining these procedures, supporters argue that the bill could expedite the appeals process, ensuring that death penalty cases are resolved more efficiently. The automatic stay of execution that occurs with a first application for a writ of habeas corpus emphasizes the seriousness of these procedures and maintains a level of judicial scrutiny in capital cases. However, the limitations on subsequent applications might frustrate those who seek to exhaust all legal avenues to contest their sentences.

Summary

House Bill 06087 aims to amend post-conviction procedures specifically pertaining to death penalty cases in Connecticut. One of the main provisions of the bill is to impose stricter timelines on the application of writs of habeas corpus in cases where a death sentence has been imposed. Applicants would be barred from challenging their convictions if they do not file their claims within three years of their sentencing, or one year after their last appellate court's final order. Exceptions are made for cases where due diligence can be demonstrated under certain circumstances, such as due to physical or mental incapacitation, new evidentiary discoveries, or significant changes in constitutional law.

Contention

Opposition to HB06087 is anticipated from various advocacy groups and legal experts who argue that the bill could undermine fair trial principles by restricting defendants’ rights to seek post-conviction relief. Critics contend that the stringent timelines may lead to injustices, particularly for those who may have legitimate claims of wrongful conviction or new evidence that emerges after the statutory deadlines. The concerns over the automatic stays imply a race against time, especially for capital defendants, as subsequent applications may not receive the same allowances unless they clearly demonstrate strong grounds for consideration.