S-960-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would eliminate the "year-and-a-day rule" for federal homicide prosecutions — a common law doctrine that barred murder charges if the victim died more than one year and one day after the act that caused the injury. Under the bill, federal prosecutors could charge a defendant with homicide regardless of how much time passed between the harmful act and the victim's death. However, the bill would preserve the year-and-a-day threshold as a sentencing limit: the death penalty could not be imposed, and first-degree murder's maximum penalty would be capped at a term of years (rather than life) if the victim died more than one year and one day after the act. The bill applies only to acts occurring after its enactment date.
Who benefits
Victims' families in cases where a victim survived an attack for more than a year before dying — particularly victims of violent crimes, poisoning, or severe assault who lingered in medical care. Federal prosecutors who would gain the ability to bring homicide charges in long-delayed-death cases. Medical examiners and forensic experts whose testimony linking a delayed death to an earlier act would now be legally actionable. Advocates for victims of crimes involving traumatic brain injuries or other slow-progressing fatal injuries.
Who is hurt
Defendants who committed acts before this bill's enactment are not affected (the bill is prospective only), but going forward, individuals could face homicide charges years or even decades after an act, potentially complicating their ability to mount a defense as witnesses' memories fade and evidence degrades. Defense attorneys would face greater challenges in cases where the causal link between an old act and a later death is medically contested. Defendants who might previously have faced only assault or battery charges could now face murder charges for the same conduct.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the year-and-a-day rule is a relic of medieval common law, developed when medicine lacked the tools to establish causation over long periods, and that modern forensic science can now reliably link a victim's death to an earlier act even years later. They contend that allowing a perpetrator to escape murder charges simply because their victim survived on life support for more than a year produces unjust outcomes — the perpetrator's culpability does not diminish because medical care prolonged the victim's life. The majority of states have already abolished this rule, and federal law should be consistent with that modern standard.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that abolishing the rule without a firm outer time limit creates serious due process concerns: the longer the gap between act and death, the harder it becomes for a defendant to challenge the causal chain, locate witnesses, or preserve exculpatory evidence, potentially violating the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial. They contend that the bill's retention of the year-and-a-day threshold only for sentencing purposes — not for charging — is an inconsistent half-measure that exposes defendants to homicide prosecution based on medically uncertain causation determinations made years after the fact, with no meaningful limit on prosecutorial discretion.