This analysis of the postconviction habeas corpus review process in capital cases demonstrates that in its current form it does not serve the best interests of the criminal justice system, the defendant, the victim, or the community. The intent of the drafters of the habeas corpus statutes was to provide greater efficiency in the postconviction review process while preserving an effective remedy for all properly established violations of the U.S. Constitution. This review of scholarly writings and committee reports, as well as the examination of the Robert Alton Harris case, shows there are excessive delays by legal counsel in filing petitions and by courts in issuing decisions. Delays are also occasioned by inexperienced counsel and the multi-layered State and Federal appeals process and collateral review. The need for reform is clearly indicated. There have been two major pieces of legislation introduced in Congress that include capital habeas corpus reform. The common provisions of the two bills include appointment of counsel, mandatory stay of execution, deadlines for filing writs, and limits on the scope of evidentiary hearings by Federal courts. The provisions of these two measures maintain the balance of interests needed in habeas corpus reform.