Harbison v. Bell
2009 U.S. LEXIS 2496, 173 L. Ed. 2d 347, 556 U.S. 180 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3599, a federally appointed attorney for a state death-row inmate in federal habeas corpus proceedings is authorized to represent that inmate in subsequent state clemency proceedings, and is entitled to compensation for such representation.
Facts:
- In 1983, Edward Jerome Harbison was sentenced to death in a Tennessee state court.
- After exhausting his state court appeals, the Federal District Court appointed the Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee to represent him in his federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- During the federal habeas representation, Harbison's counsel developed substantial new evidence related to his culpability and mitigating factors for his sentence.
- After his federal habeas petition was ultimately denied, Harbison sought to initiate state clemency proceedings.
- At the time, Tennessee state law did not authorize the appointment of state public defenders to represent inmates in clemency proceedings, leaving Harbison without a clear path to obtaining state-funded counsel for this purpose.
- Harbison's federally appointed counsel then asked the federal court to expand the scope of her appointment to include representation in the state clemency proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- Harbison's federally appointed counsel filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to expand the scope of her appointment to include state clemency proceedings.
- The District Court denied the motion, relying on precedent from the Sixth Circuit.
- Harbison appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3599 does not authorize federal funding for counsel in state clemency proceedings.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 18 U.S.C. § 3599 authorize federally appointed counsel, representing a state death-row inmate in federal habeas corpus proceedings, to represent that inmate in subsequent state clemency proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes, 18 U.S.C. § 3599 authorizes federally appointed counsel to represent their clients in state clemency proceedings. The plain language of the statute dictates this outcome. Subsection (a)(2) provides for the appointment of counsel for state petitioners in federal habeas proceedings, and subsection (e) defines the scope of that representation to include 'proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.' The phrase 'executive or other clemency' must encompass state clemency, as federal clemency is exclusively 'executive.' The inclusion of 'other' would be superfluous if it did not refer to the various forms of state clemency. Furthermore, Congress recognized clemency as the 'fail safe' in the criminal justice system and understood that federal habeas counsel, being most familiar with the case, are best positioned to provide continuous and effective representation in this critical final stage.
Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes, the statute authorizes representation in state clemency proceedings. While the text is not entirely plain, as a literal reading of 'every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings' could lead to the absurd result of funding federal counsel for state retrials, this problem can be avoided. The best reading of the statute is that a state retrial is a 'new judicial proceeding,' not a 'subsequent stage' of the federal habeas proceeding. By interpreting the statute to avoid this problematic result, it becomes clear that the separate clause regarding clemency proceedings can and should be read to include available state clemency, aligning with the majority's conclusion without opening the door to federal funding for all subsequent state court litigation.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes, the statute authorizes representation in state clemency proceedings. This conclusion is required by the plain text of §§ 3599(a)(2) and (e). The statute entitles eligible state litigants to counsel for 'proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available.' Since state clemency is the only form of clemency available to state prisoners, the statute necessarily covers it. The Court's interpretive task is to apply the text as written, not to improve upon it or insert limitations where none exist to avoid potentially problematic policy outcomes, which are for Congress to address.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, the statute does not authorize federally funded counsel for state clemency. The majority's reading is inconsistent; it correctly implies a 'federal proceedings' limitation for subsection (a)(1) but then illogically refuses to apply the same contextual reading to subsection (e). The entire statute is a federal law providing for federally funded counsel and should be presumed to apply only in federal proceedings. The majority's reliance on the phrase 'or other clemency' is misplaced, as the statute is poorly drafted and full of superfluous language. To avoid the absurd results of its own interpretation (such as funding counsel for subsequent state habeas), the majority must resort to a tortured reading of the statutory text, demonstrating the fundamental error of its initial premise.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split and significantly clarifies the scope of federal representation for capital defendants. By ensuring continuity of counsel from federal habeas through state clemency, the Court reinforces the view that clemency is an integral part of the capital punishment legal process, not merely a matter of executive grace. The ruling prevents a 'cliff' where indigent inmates lose their expert counsel at a critical final stage. This has a direct practical impact, requiring federal funding for lawyers in state-level clemency proceedings and solidifying the role of the federal judiciary in overseeing capital representation until the very end of the process.
