S-960-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would eliminate the common-law "year-and-a-day rule," which historically barred homicide prosecution if the victim died more than a year and a day after the injuring act. It would allow federal homicide prosecutions regardless of how much time passed between the act and the victim's death, while preserving existing statutes of limitations for initiating charges. It would still require the death penalty to be limited to cases where death occurred within a year and a day, and caps the maximum penalty for first-degree murder at a term of years (rather than mandatory life) when death occurs more than a year and a day after the act.
Who benefits
Prosecutors and victims' families in cases where a victim lingers for years before dying from an assault, poisoning, or other injury — enabling homicide charges that current law may bar. Victims of long-term injuries such as those from prolonged medical complications, delayed effects of assault, or attempted-murder cases where the victim later dies. Federal law enforcement agencies gain an additional prosecutorial tool for cases that previously could only be charged as assault.
Who is hurt
Defendants who caused injuries long ago and now face potential murder charges years or decades later, when evidence may have degraded and witnesses may be unavailable or deceased. Individuals already prosecuted or sentenced for assault related to the same act could face new homicide exposure if the victim later dies, raising fairness concerns about extended criminal liability. Defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates who argue delayed prosecutions complicate the ability to mount an effective defense.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the year-and-a-day rule is an outdated common-law relic from an era when medical science could not reliably link a death to an earlier injury after long delays, and that modern forensic and medical evidence can now establish causation years later. They contend the bill closes a real gap where killers who caused a slow, ultimately fatal injury could escape murder charges entirely simply because the victim survived longer than a year, denying justice to victims' families.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that prosecuting deaths occurring years or decades after the underlying act raises serious due process concerns, since evidence degrades, memories fade, and witnesses may die or become unavailable, undermining a defendant's ability to mount a defense. They contend the rule existed precisely because causation becomes increasingly speculative over long time spans, and that removing it could expose people to murder liability for deaths that may be attributable to unrelated intervening causes like aging or unrelated illness.
Constitutional context
The bill implicates Fifth and Sixth Amendment due process and fair-trial protections, since prosecutions based on decades-old acts raise concerns about a defendant's ability to confront evidence and mount a defense, though the bill preserves the statute of limitations for initiating charges under 18 U.S.C. § 3282. No Supreme Court case directly addresses abolition of the year-and-a-day rule at the federal level, though state courts have upheld similar abolitions against due process challenges as within legislative authority to define crimes.
Checks and balances
Congress defines the scope of federal homicide law and prosecutorial timing; federal courts retain authority to assess due process and evidentiary challenges in individual prosecutions, and the bill itself constrains prosecutorial discretion by limiting the death penalty and mandatory life sentences to cases with a shorter act-to-death interval.
Historical precedent
Most U.S. states have already abolished the common-law year-and-a-day rule through legislation or judicial decisions since the 1980s and 1990s, and those changes have generally survived legal challenge.