U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 228— DEATH SENTENCE

18 U.S.C. § 3599

Counsel for financially unable defendants

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, in every criminal action in which a defendant is charged with a crime which may be punishable by death, a defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate representation or investigative, expert, or other reasonably necessary services at any time either—(A) before judgment; or(B) after the entry of a judgment imposing a sentence of death but before the execution of that judgment;shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys and the furnishing of such other services in accordance with subsections (b) through (f).(2) In any post conviction proceeding under section 2254 or 2255 of title 28, United States Code, seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence, any defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate representation or investigative, expert, or other reasonably necessary services shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys and the furnishing of such other services in accordance with subsections (b) through (f).(b) If the appointment is made before judgment, at least one attorney so appointed must have been admitted to practice in the court in which the prosecution is to be tried for not less than five years, and must have had not less than three years experience in the actual trial of felony prosecutions in that court.(c) If the appointment is made after judgment, at least one attorney so appointed must have been admitted to practice in the court of appeals for not less than five years, and must have had not less than three years experience in the handling of appeals in that court in felony cases.(d) With respect to subsections (b) and (c), the court, for good cause, may appoint another attorney whose background, knowledge, or experience would otherwise enable him or her to properly represent the defendant, with due consideration to the seriousness of the possible penalty and to the unique and complex nature of the litigation.(e) Unless replaced by similarly qualified counsel upon the attorney’s own motion or upon motion of the defendant, each attorney so appointed shall represent the defendant throughout every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including pretrial proceedings, trial, sentencing, motions for new trial, appeals, applications for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and all available post-conviction process, together with applications for stays of execution and other appropriate motions and procedures, and shall also represent the defendant in such competency proceedings and proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.(f) Upon a finding that investigative, expert, or other services are reasonably necessary for the representation of the defendant, whether in connection with issues relating to guilt or the sentence, the court may authorize the defendant’s attorneys to obtain such services on behalf of the defendant and, if so authorized, shall order the payment of fees and expenses therefor under subsection (g). No ex parte proceeding, communication, or request may be considered pursuant to this section unless a proper showing is made concerning the need for confidentiality. Any such proceeding, communication, or request shall be transcribed and made a part of the record available for appellate review.(g)(1) Compensation shall be paid to attorneys appointed under this subsection 11 So in original. Probably should be “section”. at a rate of not more than $125 per hour for in-court and out-of-court time. The Judicial Conference is authorized to raise the maximum for hourly payment specified in the 22 So in original. Probably should be “this”. paragraph up to the aggregate of the overall average percentages of the adjustments in the rates of pay for the General Schedule made pursuant to section 5305 33 So in original. Probably should be “5303”. of title 5 on or after such date. After the rates are raised under the preceding sentence, such hourly range may be raised at intervals of not less than one year, up to the aggregate of the overall average percentages of such adjustments made since the last raise under this paragraph.(2) Fees and expenses paid for investigative, expert, and other reasonably necessary services authorized under subsection (f) shall not exceed $7,500 in any case, unless payment in excess of that limit is certified by the court, or by the United States magistrate judge, if the services were rendered in connection with the case disposed of entirely before such magistrate judge, as necessary to provide fair compensation for services of an unusual character or duration, and the amount of the excess payment is approved by the chief judge of the circuit. The chief judge of the circuit may delegate such approval authority to an active or senior circuit judge.(3) The amounts paid under this paragraph 44 So in original. Probably should be “subsection”. for services in any case shall be disclosed to the public, after the disposition of the petition.(Added Pub. L. 109–177, title II, § 222(a), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 231; amended Pub. L. 110–406, § 12(c), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4294.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2008—Subsec. (g)(2). Pub. L. 110–406 inserted “or senior” after “active” in second sentence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 427 cases (135 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009). · cites it 17× “In denying the motion, the District Court relied on Cir cuit precedent construing 18 U. S. C. §3599 , which provides for the appointment of federal counsel.”
Carlton Michael Gary v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison, 686 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 32× “” 18 U.S.C. § 3599 (a)(2).1 “[E]ach attorney so appointed shall represent the [prisoner] throughout every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings,” which includes “all available post-conviction process, together with applications for stays of execution and other…”
Gary Ray Bowles v. Ron Desantis, Governor, 934 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 27× “§ 1983 claim that the State of Florida interfered with what he views as his right under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 to have attorneys in the Capital Habeas Unit (CHU) of the Federal Public Defender’s Office represent him before the Florida Clemency Commission and Board.”
Daniel Lugo v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., 750 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 12× “15 We also agree with the concurring opinion that indigent state capital inmates are entitled to the appointment of federally funded counsel to assist them in the preparation and filing of a § 2254 federal habeas petition, perhaps even before they have sought state collateral…”
Scott Panetti v. Lorie Davis, Dir., 863 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 26× “We will now reverse the district court’s denial of appointed counsel and expert funding under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 , vacate its factual findings relating to Panetti’s competency, and remand for additional proceedings, another chapter in this judicial plunge into Case: 14-70037…”
Baze v. Parker, 632 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 18× “Baze argued that the order was authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3599 (f) and, in the alternative, the All Writs Act, 28 U.”
Juan Carlos Chavez v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., 742 F.3d 940 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 12× “On March 16, 2010, the district court officially appointed Norgard as federal habeas counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 . The court then dismissed the § 2254 petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas relief, see 28 U.”
Ryan v. Valencia Gonzales, 133 S. Ct. 696 (2013). · cites it 7× “We hold that neither 18 U. S. C. § 3599 nor 18 U. S. C. § 4241 provides such a right and that the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Sixth Circuits both erred in holding that district courts must stay federal habeas proceedings when petitioners are adjudged incompetent.”
Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080 (2018). · cites it 5× “Petitioner moved for funding under 18 U. S. C. §3599 (f ), which makes funds available if they are “reasonably nec- essary,” but petitioner’s motion was denied.”
Mikal Mahdi v. Bryan Stirling, 20 F.4th 846 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 6× “Noting that “counsel want[ed] to present as much beneficial evidence as possible,” the court reiterated its own duty to determine “what [was] reasonably necessary for adequate representation” to warrant funding under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 (a)(2). J.A. 39. And here, the district court…”
Cary Michael Lambrix v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Corr., 756 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 8× “HULL, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Cary Lambrix, a Florida prisoner sentenced to death, appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se “Motion for Appointment of Substitute Collateral Counsel,” under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 , to aid him in preparing and filing a second or successive 28…”
Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “18 U.S.C. § 3599 (g)(1); see also 28 U.S.”
Show all 427 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.