Major criticisms of current procedures include that they are largely unnecessary because there exist adequate safeguards to prevent abuses of governmental authority; that they result in costly and time consuming series of appeals that prevent proper consideration of other types of cases by the Federal courts; and that they usurp the authority of State courts and contribute to friction between the State and Federal justice systems. Discussion also considers proposed provisions that would set a 1-year time limit on Federal habeus corpus applications, narrow and simplify the standard of review in habeus corpus proceedings, and reduce the grounds for invalidating a capital sentence. Other provisions discussed would limit raising claims that were not previously raised in State courts, permit prompt denial of frivolous petitions, and limit authority to authorize appeals in habeus corpus cases to judges of the courts of appeals. In general, testimony favors the proposed reforms as a means of easing overloaded court dockets, re-introducing greater finality into judgments, preventing delays, avoiding unnecessary duplication of judicial efforts, and according proper deference to State courts and proceedings.