134 L.Ed.2d 440 (1996) (discussing the importance of imposing standards governing disposition of habeas applications before district courts because of the complex issues involved) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991)). Commentators agree with this assessment. It is axiomatic that the complexity of habeas proceedings “makes it unlikely that capital defendants will' be" able to file successful petitions for collateral relief without the assistance of persons learned in the law.” McFarland, 512 U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2572 (emphasis added) (quoting Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 14, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 2772, 106 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (Kennedy, J., joined by O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment)). See also Lonchar, — U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 1302 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Section 2261 reflects this
holding no right to counsel for capital defendants in state habeas proceedings holding that even capital prisoners have no constitutional right to counsel in habeas cases holding that in general aedpa applies only to habeas petitions filed after the statutes effective date of april 24 1996 and noting that aedpas special procedures for 28 usc  2254 petitions in capital cases apply also to petitions pending on april 24 1996 recognizing the common practice of substituting specialized capital counsel for habeas petitions filed by capital defendants holding that the right applies at capital sentencing in particular