The Sious Falls Argus Leader reports, "Attorney general argues for limits on death penalty appeals." It's written by Steve Young.
South Dakota’s top prosecutor has introduced Senate Bill 42, an attempt to curb what he calls frivolous and repetitive delays at the back end of the state’s criminal justice system. Patterned after similar federal law, Jackley’s bill puts a cap on how often indigent defendants can argue that their court-appointed lawyers are ineffective, and the time frame in which they can make that claim.
It is legislation, defense lawyers and law professors counter, that is an assault on individual constitutional rights.
Jackley’s bill passed 5-1 out of the Judiciary Committee after it was amended to give defendants two years after their direct appeal to the state Supreme Court to argue ineffective counsel and make other claims. Jackley first had wanted the statute of limitation at one year, as it is at the federal level. The proposal also was amended to allow claims to be made after two years if new evidence arises or if changes to constitutional law would affect the conviction and sentence.
It now goes to the full state Senate.
And:
While defense lawyers seem amenable to improvements, they’re not lining up yet behind this proposal, said Lindsey Riter-Rapp, a Pierre lawyer and lobbyist for the state Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Riter-Rapp said her group could accept a two-year period for habeus corpus action, which is the same amount of time defendants have to come in after they have been convicted and ask for a modification of their sentence.
Defense lawyers also were glad to see protections added to the proposal to allow for a habeas action to come after the two-year period if new evidence arises, or if a Supreme Court ruling changes a law affecting a defendant’s case.
But Riter-Rapp and others are particularly troubled by Jackley’s insistence on limiting defendants to one habeas action questioning the effectiveness of their trial or appellate lawyers. They’re also bothered by language that gives judges discretion in deciding whether to appoint counsel for a post-conviction claim.
Donald E. Wilkes Jr., a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law for 40 years and author of five books on post-conviction remedies, said more than 30 states have enacted similar time restraints since the federal law was enacted in 1996. But few states are removing a statutory right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings as Jackley is seeking.
More information on Senate Bill 42 is available from the South Dakota Legislature website.
Earlier coverage of the South Dakota legislation to limit appeals is at the link.
Comments