DOCSLIB.ORG

Death Row U.S.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Death Row U.S.A DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 2005 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services, Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Spring 2005 (As of April 1, 2005) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,452 Race of Defendant: White 1,572 (45.54%) Black 1,440 (41.71%) Latino/Latina 359 (10.40%) Native American 40 ( 1.16%) Asian 40 ( 1.16%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,399 (98.46%) Female 53 ( 1.54%) Juveniles:* Male 72 ( 2.09%) (* NOTE: On March 1, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Roper v. Simmons that it is unconstitutional to execute a person for a crime committed when that person was under the age of 18. Only juveniles whose death sentences were vacated by court order or other official action before April 1, 2005 have been removed from the state rosters. The others remain with their names in brackets.) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 40 (Underlined jurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 13 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Winter 2005 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2004 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Illinois v. Caballes, No. 03-923 (Use of drug-sniffing dog at traffic stop) (decision below 802 N.E.2d 202 (2003)) Question Presented: Does 4th Amendment require reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using drug-detection dog to sniff vehicle during legitimate traffic stop? Decision: No. “A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has a right to possess does not violated the Fourth Amendment.” Fifth Amendment Deck v. Missouri, No. 04-5293 (Shackling and hand cuffing of defendant at penalty phase) (decision below 136 S.W.3d 481 (Mo. 2004)) Question Presented: Are 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments violated by forcing capital defendant to proceed through penalty phase while shackled and handcuffed to belly chain in full view of jury, and if so, does burden fall on state to show that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than on defendant to show that he was prejudiced? Smith v. Massachusetts, No. 03-8661 (Double jeopardy; change in ruling on sufficiency of evidence after defense rests) (decision below 788 N.E.2d 977 (2003)) Questions Presented: (1) Is double jeopardy clause’s prohibition against successive prosecutions violated when judge unequivocally rules that defendant is not guilty because government’s evidence is insufficient but later reverses her finding of not guilty? (2) Should court grant certiorari to clarify its jurisprudence and resolve split among federal circuits and among state courts on this issue? Decision: Double jeopardy was violated when, following a mid-trial acquittal, the judge submitted the charge to the jury for its adjudication. Although a state might create a procedure for reconsidering a mid-trial determination of insufficiency of evidence, the state here had no such procedure, and the dismissal was therefore binding. Sixth Amendment Deck v. Missouri, No. 04-5293 (Shackling and hand cuffing of defendant at penalty phase) (decision below 136 S.W.3d 481 (Mo. 2004)) (see description under Fifth Amendment) Halbert v. Michigan, No. 03-10198 (Effective assistance of counsel at sentencing) (decision below unpublished (Mich. Ct. App. Jan.13, 2003)) Question Presented: (2) Is petitioner entitled to resentencing when counsel failed to render effective assistance by not objecting to improper scoring under Michigan’s sentencing guidelines that resulted in petitioner receiving considerably longer sentence? Ozmint v. Nance, No. 04-273 (Standard to be applied in judging claim of ineffective assistance of Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 counsel) (decision below Nance v. Frederick, 596 S.E.2d 62 (SC 2004)) Decision: In a per curiam order, the Court vacated relief granted to a capital defendant where the court below had not required a showing of prejudice, as required by Strickland, but instead had applied the standard in Cronic, which does not require a showing of prejudice. The case was remanded for further consideration in light of Florida v. Nixon. Rompilla v. Beard, No. 04-5462 (Ineffective assistance of counsel on sentencing) (decision below Rompilla v. Horn, 355 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2004)) Questions Presented: (3) Has defendant received effective representation at capital sentencing when counsel does not review prior conviction records that counsel knows prosecution will use in aggravation, and when those records would have provided mitigating evidence regarding defendant’s traumatic childhood and mental health impairment? (4) Has defendant received effective representation at capital sentencing when counsel’s background mitigation investigation is limited to conversations with a few family members; when few people with whom counsel spoke indicated to counsel that they did not know much about defendant and could not help with background mitigation; when other sources of background information, including other family members, prior conviction records, prison records, juvenile court records, and school records were available but ignored by counsel; and when records and other family members would have provided compelling mitigating evidence about defendant’s traumatic childhood, mental retardation, and psychological disturbances? (5) Does counsel’s ineffectiveness warrant habeas relief under AEDPA when state court sought to excuse counsel’s failure to obtain any records about defendant’s history by saying records contained some information that was “not entirely helpful,” by saying counsel hired mental health experts (even though those experts did not do any background investigation and never saw records), and by saying counsel spoke to some family members (even though those family members told counsel they knew little about defendant and could not help with mitigation); and when state court did not even try to address counsel’s failure to interview other family members (who knew defendant’s mitigating history) or counsel’s complete failure to investigate aggravation that prosecution told counsel it would use? Shepard v. United States, No. 03-9168 (Sentence enhancement with prior convictions) (decision below 348 F.3d 308 (2003)) Questions Presented: (1) When defendant has pleaded guilty to nongeneric charge of burglary brought under nongeneric statute, there is no contemporaneous record of guilty plea proceedings, and judgment of conviction reflects general finding of guilty, is sentencing court still bound by categorical method set forth in United States v. Taylor to determine whether defendant’s prior convictions qualify as predicates for sentence enhancement under ACCA, or may court instead be required to conduct inquiry — including evidentiary hearing — into facts underlying conviction to determine whether, in guilty plea proceeding, both defendant and government believed that generic burglary was at issue? (2) If so, may sentencing court be required to consider version of these underlying facts find in any document in court file such as investigative police report or complaint application and, if facts alleged in document are not challenged by defendant, regard them as sufficiently reliable evidence that defendant was convicted of crime including all of the elements of generic burglary to support ACCA enhancement? United States v. Booker, No. 04-104 (decision below 375 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2004)) and United States v. Fanfan No. 04-105 (decision below unreported D.Me. 6/28/04)) (Sentence enhancement on judge-found facts other than prior conviction) Questions Presented: (1) Is Sixth Amendment violated by imposition of enhanced sentence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines based on sentencing judge’s determination of fact (other than Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 prior conviction) that was not found by jury or admitted by defendant? (2) If answer to first question is “yes,” in case in which Guidelines would require court to find sentence-enhancing fact, would U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as whole be inapplicable, as matter of severability analysis, such that sentencing court must exercise its discretion to sentence defendant within maximum and minimum set by statute for offense of conviction? Decision: Under the Sixth Amendment, jurors and not judges must make factual determinations (other than existence of prior convictions) underlying any sentence enhancements. The Sentencing Guidelines henceforth should be treated as advisory, not mandatory — they should be consulted and taken into account, but are not binding. Eighth Amendment Brown (formerly Goughnour) v. Payton, No. 03-1039 (Consideration of post-crime mitigating evidence) (decision below
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2017 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Summer 2017 (As of July 1, 2017) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,817 Race of Defendant: White 1,196 (42.46%) Black 1,168 (41.46%) Latino/Latina 373 (13.24%) Native American 26 (0.92%) Asian 53 (1.88%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,764 (98.12%) Female 53 (1.88%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 33 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 20 Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Spring 2017 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2016 or 2017 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194 (Use of websites by sex offender) (decision below 777 S.E.2d 738 (N.C.
    [Show full text]
  • AMR 51/003/2002 USA: €Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel: An
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Arbitrary, discriminatory, and cruel: an aide- mémoire to 25 years of judicial killing “For the rest of your life, you will have to move around in a world that wanted this death to happen. You will have to walk past people every day who were heartened by the killing of somebody in your family.” Mikal Gilmore, brother of Gary Gilmore1 A quarter of a century has passed since a Utah firing squad shot Gary Gilmore and opened the “modern” era of judicial killing in the United States of America. Since that day – 17 January 1977 – more than 750 men and women have been shot, gassed, electrocuted, hanged or poisoned to death in the execution chambers of 32 US states and of the federal government. More than 600 have been killed since 1990. Each has been the target of a ritualistic, politically expedient punishment which offers no constructive contribution to society’s efforts to combat violent crime. The US Supreme Court halted executions in 1972 because of the arbitrary way in which death sentences were being handed out. Justice Potter Stewart famously compared this arbitrariness to the freakishness of being struck by lightning. Four years later, the Court ruled that newly-enacted capital laws would cure the system of bias, and allowed executions to resume. Today, rarely a week goes by without at least one prisoner somewhere in the country being strapped down and killed by government executioners. In the past five years, an average of 78 people a year have met this fate. Perhaps Justice Stewart, if he were still alive, would note that this is similar to the number of people annually killed by lightning in the USA.2 So, is the system successfully selecting the “worst of the worst” crimes and offenders for the death penalty, as its proponents would claim, or has it once again become a lethal lottery? The evidence suggests that the latter is closer to the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Our Full Report, Death in Florida, Now
    USA DEATH IN FLORIDA GOVERNOR REMOVES PROSECUTOR FOR NOT SEEKING DEATH SENTENCES; FIRST EXECUTION IN 18 MONTHS LOOMS Amnesty International Publications First published on 21 August 2017 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2017 Index: AMR 51/6736/2017 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 3 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations Table of Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 ‘Bold, positive change’ not allowed ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes April 11­12, 1969
    UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes April 11­12, 1969 04­11­1969 Pages 1­39 BOARD OF REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM April 11, 1969 The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Donald C. Moyer Campus Student Union, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Members present: Fred M. Anderson, M. D. Mr. Thomas G. Bell Mr. James H. Bilbray (for a portion of the meeting) Mr. Archie C. Grant Mr. Procter Hug, Jr. (for a portion of the meeting) Mr. Harold Jacobsen Mrs. Molly Knudtsen Louis Lombardi, M. D. Mr. R. J. Ronzone Dr. Juanita White Members absent: Mr. Albert Seeliger Others present: Chancellor Neil D. Humphrey President N. Edd Miller (UNR) President R. J. Zorn (UNLV) Vice Chancellor Wendell A. Mordy (DRI) Mr. Daniel Walsh, Deputy Attorney General Mr. Edward L. Pine, Business Manager, UNR Mr. Herman Westfall, Business Manager, UNLV Dr. Donald Driggs, Senate Chairman (UNR) Professor Roger Miller, Senate Chairman (UNLV) Dr. Don Fowler, representing DRI Faculty Senate Mr. Edward Olsen, Director of Information (UNR) Mr. Mark Hughes, Director of Information (UNLV) Mr. Joe Bell, ASUN President Mr. Jim Hardesty, ASUN President­Elect Mr. Bill Terry, CSUN President The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Bell at 10:45 A.M. 1. Approval of Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Grant, seconded by Mr. Ronzone, the minutes of the regular meeting of March 6, 1969 were ap­ proved as submitted. 2. Acceptance of Gifts Upon motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Dr. Anderson, the following gifts and grants were accepted: University of Nevada, Reno Library Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES of AMERICA the Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The execution of mentally ill offenders I cannot believe that capital punishment is a solution – to abolish murder by murdering, an endless chain of murdering. When I heard that my daughter’s murderer was not to be executed, my first reaction was immense relief from an additional torment: the usual catastrophe, breeding more catastrophe, was to be stopped – it might be possible to turn the bad into good. I felt with this man, the victim of a terrible sickness, of a demon over which he had no control, might even help to establish the reasons that caused his insanity and to find a cure for it... Mother of 19-year-old murder victim, California, November 1960(1) Today, at 6pm, the State of Florida is scheduled to kill my brother, Thomas Provenzano, despite clear evidence that he is mentally ill.... I have to wonder: Where is the justice in killing a sick human being? Sister of death row inmate, June 2000(2) I’ve got one thing to say, get your Warden off this gurney and shut up. I am from the island of Barbados. I am the Warden of this unit. People are seeing you do this. Final statement of Monty Delk, mentally ill man executed in Texas on 28 February 2002 Overview: A gap in the ‘evolving standards of decency’ The underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency. Indiana Supreme Court Justice, September 2002(3) On 30 May 2002, a jury in Maryland sentenced Francis Zito to death.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty
    California District Attorneys Association Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty Produced in collaboration with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation MARCH 2003 GILBERT G. OTERO LAWRENCE G. BROWN President Executive Director Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty MARCH 2003 CDAA BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS DIRECTORS PRESIDENT John Paul Bernardi, Los Angeles County Gilbert G. Otero Imperial County Cregor G. Datig, Riverside County SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT Bradford Fenocchio, Placer County David W. Paulson Solano County James P. Fox, San Mateo County SECRETARY-TREASURER Ed Jagels, Kern County Jan Scully Sacramento County Ernest J. LiCalsi, Madera County SERGEANT-AT-ARMS Martin T. Murray, San Mateo County Gerald Shea San Luis Obispo County Rolanda Pierre Dixon, Santa Clara County PAST PRESIDENT Frank J. Vanella, San Bernardino County Gordon Spencer Merced County Terry Wiley, Alameda County Acknowledgments The research and preparation of this document required the effort, skill, and collaboration of some of California’s most experienced capital-case prosecutors and talented administration- of-justice attorneys. Deep gratitude is extended to all who assisted. Special recognition is also deserved by CDAA’s Projects Editor, Kaye Bassett, Esq. This paper would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the California District Attorneys Association’s Death Penalty White Paper Ad Hoc Committee. CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION DEATH PENALTY WHITE PAPER AD HOC COMMITTEE JIM ANDERSON ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TAMI R. BOGERT CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION SUSAN BLAKE CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION LAWRENCE G. BROWN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION WARD A. CAMPBELL CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE BRENDA DALY SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DANE GILLETTE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE DAVID R.
    [Show full text]
  • Reason #1 to Support a National Moratorium on Executions
    Reason #1 to Support a National Moratorium on Executions The National Death Penalty System is Seriously Flawed Resulting in Wrongful Convictions and Death Sentences • More than two out of every three capital judgments reviewed by the courts during a 23-year period were seriously flawed. Experts reviewed all the capital cases and appeals imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 at the state and federal levels. They found a national error rate of 68%. In other words, over two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences are reversed because of serious error during trial or sentencing. This does not include errors that were not serious enough to warrant a reversal. • The federal government would not tolerate an error rate of 68% for any other government function - such as product safety or processing social security claims. Yet it allows this margin of error in the system that can take a person’s life. Only a moratorium puts an immediate halt to the risk of an innocent person being executed. • The error rate for capital cases is much higher than for other types of cases. At the direct appeal stage, serious or reversible error is detected in about 12 to 20% of the non-capital criminal cases that are appealed. • High error rates exist throughout the country and are not limited to certain states. Over 90% of states that have the death penalty have error rates of 52% or higher. 85% have error rates of 60% or higher. Three- fifths have error rates of 70% or higher. This is not an isolated problem but is universal in all death penalty states.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Victims' Families and the Press
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2003 What They Say at the End: Capital Victims' Families and the Press Samuel R. Gross University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Daniel J. Matheson Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/911 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Law and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Gross, Samuel R. "What They Say at the End: Capital Victims' Families and the Press (Symposium: Victims and the Death Penalty: Inside and Outside the Courtroom)." D. J. Matheson, co-author. Cornell L. Rev. 88, no. 2 (2003): 486-516. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT THEY SAY AT THE END: CAPITAL VICTIMS' FAMILIES AND THE PRESS Samuel R. Grosst & DanielJ.Mathesontt INTRODUCTION ................................................... 486 I. EXECUTIONS .............................................. 489 A . C losure ............................................. 490 B. Justice and Vengeance .............................. 494 C. Com passion ........................................ 497 D. Clemency and Intrafamilial Conflict ...............
    [Show full text]
  • Sean Richard Sellers
    Sean Richard Sellers “Schoolboy Night Stalker” “Night Roomer” Information researched and summarized by Sloane Naughton Heather Newson Robert Nissel Department of Psychology Radford University Radford, VA 24142-6946 Date Age Life Event Sean’s parents, Richard C. Sellers and Vonda Blackwell are married in Kings County, 11/22/1968 California. Vonda is 15 and Richard is 17. Born in Corcoran California to Vonda Blackwell and Richard Sellers. His mother was 05/18/1969 0 only 16 and his father was an alcoholic. After his parents’ marriage fell apart, his mother moved with him back to her home 1972 3 state of Oklahoma -Vonda Sellers and Paul Bellofatto got married in a simple ceremony. Paul Bellofatto became Sean Sellers’ stepfather -Economic recession hit Oklahoma and Vonda decided to join Paul by becoming his team truck driver. This lead to Sean being cared for by his grandfather, Jim, and step grandmother, Geneva, when his parents were on the road for 3-4 weeks at a time. Mid 1970s 5-10 -Geneva realized that Sean had such high demands for himself. However, he had no problems getting along with the other children at school -In 3rd grade, his mother and stepfather decided to take him from his school and move to California - He started hearing voices by the age of 6 and 7, which were always criticizing him but he thought that this was normal -Satan’s gospel came into Sean Sellers’ life. His babysitter would bring over books about Satan while his parents were away. However, he knew that it was a good idea to keep this a secret.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Fall 2020 A quarterly report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Fall 2020 (As of October 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2553 (2553 – 180* - 877M = 1496 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,076 (42.15%) Black 1,062 (41.60%) Latino/Latina 343 (13.44%) Native American 24 (0.94%) Asian 47 (1.84%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,502 (98.00%) Female 51 (2.00%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 30 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, OregonM, PennsylvaniaM, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. M States where a moratorium prohibiting execution has been imposed by the Governor. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 23 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire [see note below], New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively. The man already sentenced remains under sentence of death.] * Designates the number of people in non-moratorium states who are not under active death sentence because of court reversal but whose sentence may be reimposed. M Designates the number of people in states where a gubernatorial moratorium on execution has been imposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2005 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services, Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2005 (As of January 1, 2005) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,455 Race of Defendant: White 1,576 (45.62%) Black 1,444 (41.79%) Latino/Latina 356 (10.30%) Native American 39 ( 1.13%) Asian 40 ( 1.16%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,401 (98.44%) Female 54 ( 1.56%) Juveniles: Male 79 ( 2.29%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 40 (Underlined jurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 13 Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Fall 2004 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2004 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Devenpeck v. Alford, No. 03-710 (Probable cause to arrest and qualified immunity) (decision below Alford v.
    [Show full text]
  • When Minutes Matter
    When minutes matter A step-by-step guide to wire fraud recovery Created and published by: Thomas W. Cronkright II, Esq. Kenneth S. Robb, CISSP CEO/Co-Founder Cyber Security & Risk Consultant CertifID LLC Citadel Cyber Solutions, Inc. 1410 Plainfield Ave. NE 322 North Shore Dr. BLDG 1B, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49505 Pittsburgh PA 15212 616.855.0855 412-203-2207 www.certifid.com www.citadelcybersolutions.com [email protected] [email protected] Updated: May 18, 2018 WWW.CERTIFID.COM — [email protected] Roadmap to Wire Fraud Recovery A Step-by-Step Guide to Recouping Funds, Minimizing Loss and Remediating Systems. Wire fraud is rapidly becoming an epidemic in the mortgage industry. The FBI (IC3) hit a milestone last year by receiving its four-millionth complaint since the IC3 division was created in 2000. In 2017, it received 301,580 cybercrime and fraud complaints with reported losses over $1.4 Billion - Business Email Compromise (BEC) was the No. 1 cause of loss and is now being tracked as a separate cybercrime. The number of BEC victims increased 31% from 2016 to 2017 and BEC-related losses during the same period increased by 88%. Astonishingly, that number is estimated to include just 15% of the actual number of wire fraud incidents to hit the industry (Source: IC3). A tidal wave of indicators and anecdotes leave little doubt that fraudsters are only growing more sophisticated, more aggressive and more successful each day. What follows is our suggested roadmap for those businesses—and not simply title insurance-related firms, but any mortgage-related businesses—that believe they’ve been victimized by a wire fraud scheme.
    [Show full text]