[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______


                          HON. JAMES A. BARCIA

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 21, 1994

  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
acknowledge the fact that I voted in error yesterday when voting on 
Representative McCollum's equal justice amendment to H.R. 4092, Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. I should have voted in favor of 
the amendment and I would like to explain why the amendment is correct.
  I have always been a supporter of the death penalty, when available 
and appropriately used. Under current law a jury is prohibited from 
considering race in determining a sentence for a defendant and 
therefore, I feel that the current language in the crime bill, the so-
called Fairness in Death Sentencing Act which would permit a capital 
case defendant to introduce statistical data regarding race at the 
sentencing phase, would effectively abolish the death penalty.
  The Supreme Court has specifically rejected a statistical premise 
similar to that suggested in the language of the bill in McCleskey 
versus Kemp. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected claims that 
statistical showings of racially discriminatory patterns in the 
application of capital punishment proves the death penalty is being 
administered in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments to 
the U.S. Constitution.
  The language in the crime bill permits a major change in focus in our 
criminal justice system. Instead of focusing on the particular facts of 
the case and on whether the individual defendants committed the charged 
offense, the sentence outcome will hinge on the collective statistics 
in other unrelated capital cases. Capital case decisions are supposed 
to be race neutral. Rather than minimizing the risk of race 
considerations this language in effect introduces ``race 
consciousness'' into capitol cases.
  Furthermore, it is virtually assured that the compliance of the State 
with the bill's requirements will be relitigated in every federal 
habeas proceeding. If a defendant can show the State failed to comply 
in any manner with the data requirements or failed to provide 
sufficient funds for presentation of the discrimination claim, that 
claim can be determined independently in Federal court, as if the State 
determinations never occurred. This will provide great incentive for 
defense counsel to litigate the compliance issue in each Federal case. 
The current language in the bill imposes a burden on the prosecution 
that is too onerous and places an expense on the taxpayers that is too 
great.
  Because of the aforementioned reasons, I respectfully submit this 
statement in explanation of my error. Mr. McCollum's amendment, which 
would codify the current law prohibiting a defendant in a capitol case 
to introduce statistical data at the sentencing phase of a trial is the 
correct path, and the one I intend to use.

                          ____________________