Federal habeas review not needed, study says.

Should state habeas corpus petitions be reviewed by federal courts? A recent study by the National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg, Virginia, concluded that state courts alone can be trusted to protect the constitutional rights of prisoners.

"This finding should ease tension between state and federal courts over the scope of federal review," according to a statement from the center.

The study found:

* Fewer prisoners are filing habeas petitions. Those who do tend to file several petitions in both state and federal courts.

* Prisoners who file habeas petitions typically were convicted of serious offenses by a jury and are serving long sentences.

* Petitions are most likely to be granted the first time they are presented to a state court, with subsequent petitions less likely to be granted regardless of whether they are filed in state or federal court.

* Prisoners raise similar claims in state and federal courts, with the most commonly filed claim being ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Conference of Chief Justices, which consists of the highest-ranking judge or justice in each state, believes that federal review of state convictions duplicates the work of state courts, prolongs state proceedings, and causes unnecessary tension between state and federal courts.

Critics of state-only habeas review argue that expanding federal review of state court convictions protects federal constitutional rights, ensures uniformity in enforcing rights, overcomes the errors of ineffective attorneys in state trial courts, and avoids incarcerations or executions of innocent prisoners.

To order a copy of the report, Habeas Corpus in State and Federal Courts, contact Came Clay, National Center for State Courts, P.O. Box 8798, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798. To order by telephone, call [phone] or fax your order to [phone].