The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area 43 sentence if the federal court determines that the constitutional rights of the defendant were violated by inadequate representation.61 Practical measures are also in place to provide quality representation. In the federal system, upon indictment for a capital offence, an indigent defendant is entitled to the appointment of two counsel, one of whom must have expertise in the law applicable to capital cases. Federal law also sets minimum standards for the experience of such counsel. The overwhelming majority of states with capital punishment have also established standards or practices to ensure that competent counsel are assigned. In addition, the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the United States Department of Justice, is funding a Capital Case Litigation Project to provide training to defence counsel, state and local prosecutors, and state trial judges to improve the quality of representation and the reliability of verdicts in state capital cases. The training will focus on investigation techniques; pre-trial and trial procedures, including the use of expert testimony and forensic science evidence; advocacy in capital cases; and capital-case sentencing-phase procedures. National grantees include the National District Attorneys Association, the National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, and the National Judicial College. Eligible state grantees include criminal justice agencies, such as the court system or a public defender’s office, and state bar associations. ‘Death-Row Phenomenon’ The often lengthy time between imposition of a death sentence and actual execution has led to claims that convicts suffer from cruel and unusual punishment as a result of the delay. This argument has had no legal success in the United States. Although it has not ruled on the merits, the Supreme Court has denied review of appeals courts’ decisions rejecting this claim at least four times.62 The delay is typically the result of the convict’s own insistence on the myriad of legal protections and layers of court review described above to ensure that his conviction and sentence were constitutionally determined and imposed. As Justice Thomas has stated, “I am unaware of any support in the American constitutional tradition or in this Court’s precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed.”63 61 See, for example, Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003); and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that, in various circumstances, failure to present mitigating evidence at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance of counsel warranting reversal of the death sentence. 62 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995); Elledge v. Florida, 525 U.S. 944 (1998); Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999); Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990 (2002). 63 Knight, 528 U.S. at 990.