SB 718, titled “Eric’s Law,” would amend federal death penalty procedures in title 18 of the U.S. Code. The bill requires a new special sentencing hearing if a capital sentencing jury cannot unanimously recommend a sentence of death, life imprisonment without release, or a lesser sentence. In that event, upon motion by the government, the court must impanel a new jury to conduct another special hearing under the existing federal capital sentencing framework.
If the second jury also fails to reach a unanimous sentencing recommendation, the court must impose a non-death sentence authorized by law. The bill also makes a conforming change to the list of circumstances under which a new special hearing may be required. In practical terms, the measure is designed to prevent a non-unanimous capital sentencing jury from ending the sentencing process without a final recommendation, while still preserving a non-capital outcome if unanimity cannot be reached after a second jury is convened.
Impact
The bill would change federal criminal procedure in capital cases by adding a new rule to 18 U.S.C. § 3593 governing what happens when a sentencing jury cannot unanimously agree on a punishment. It would give the government the ability to seek a new penalty-phase jury rather than leaving the case unresolved, and it would require the court to impose a lawful sentence other than death if the second jury also deadlocks. The measure affects federal prosecutors, defendants in death-eligible cases, judges, and juries in federal capital proceedings.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of debate or support levels in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a procedural reform to ensure capital cases reach a sentencing outcome, and its short title suggests it is presented as a response to a specific case or concern. The absence of recorded votes or hearing discussion means overall sentiment cannot be measured from the supplied context.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s treatment of jury unanimity in capital sentencing. Supporters may view the new-jury requirement as a way to avoid hung sentencing proceedings and ensure a definitive outcome in death-eligible cases, while opponents may argue it increases the likelihood of death sentences by giving the government a second chance after a jury deadlock. Additional concerns may include the burden on defendants, the role of jury discretion, and whether the procedure could prolong capital litigation.
Amends and adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding the crime of aggravated lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen, to establish provisions regarding the crime of aggravated lewd conduct with a minor child twelve or under, and to provide a punishment for the crime of aggravated lewd conduct with a minor child twelve or under.