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. Summer 2004 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. Summer 2004 (As of July 1, 2004) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,490 Race of Defendant: White 1,587 (45.47%) Black 1,467 (42.03%) Latino/Latina 356 (10.20%) Native American 39 ( 1.12%) Asian 40 ( 1.15%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,438 (98.51%) Female 52 ( 1.49%) Juveniles: Male 79 ( 2.26%) 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 2004 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for October Term 2003 and Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2004 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 03-218 (Constitutionality of “Child Online Protection Act”) (decision below 322 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2003)) Question Presented: Does Child Online Protection Act violate First Amendment? Decision: The Court of Appeals was correct in upholding the District Court’s injunction against enforcement of the COPA pending trial, because it is unlikely unconstitutional. Fourth Amendment Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, No. 03-5554 (Identifying oneself to police officer) (decision below 59 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2002)) Question Presented: Do 4th and 5th Amendments bar state from compelling people to identify themselves during police investigation when someone has been seized upon less than probable cause? Decision: Neither the 4th nor 5th Amendments are violated when a person is compelled to provide his name to police officers after an initial stop based on reasonable suspicion. 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 Fourth Amendment require reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using drug-detection dog to sniff vehicle during legitimate traffic stop? Thornton v. United States, No. 03-5165 (Search of car incident to arrest of person who had already exited the car) (decision below 325 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2003)) Question Presented: Is bright-line rule announced in New York v. Belton confined to situations in which police initiate contact with occupant of vehicle while that person is in vehicle? Decision: Belton applies even when the police do not make contact until after the person arrested has exited the vehicle. The vehicle may be searched incident to the arrest. United States v. Flores-Montano, No. 02-1794 (Border search and disassembling of vehicle) (decision below unpublished (9th Cir. 3/14/03)) Question Presented: Are Customs Service officers at international border required by 4th Amendment to have reasonable suspicion to remove, disassemble, and search vehicle’s fuel tank for contraband? Decision: The search did not require reasonable suspicion. There is less of an expectation of privacy at the border than in the interior. The interference with a motorist’s possessory interest in his vehicle is justified by the Government’s long-recognized paramount interest in protecting the border. Fifth Amendment Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, No. 03-5554 (Identifying oneself to police officer) (decision below 59 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2002)) Question Presented: Do 4th and 5th Amendments bar state from compelling people to identify themselves during police investigation when someone has been seized upon less than probable cause? Decision: Neither the 4th nor 5th Amendments are violated when a person is compelled to provide Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 his name to police officers after an initial stop based on reasonable suspicion. Missouri v. Seibert, No. 02-1371 (Intentional failure to give Miranda warnings) (decision below: 93 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. 2002)) Question Presented: Is the rule from Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings, abrogated when the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings was intentional? Decision: The “question-first” interrogation technique, where officers intentionally withhold warnings until after a confession is obtained, then give warnings and continue to interrogate until the confession is repeated, violates the constitution. A post-warning statement that is remote in time and circumstances from an initial, unwarned statement might be admissible. 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? United States v. Patane, No. 02-1183 (Suppression of physical evidence derived from unwarned but voluntary statement) (decision below 304 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2002)) Questions Presented: Whether a failure to give a suspect the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), requires the suppression of physical evidence derived from the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statement? Decision: Failure to give Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the physical fruits of an unwarned but voluntary statement. Sixth Amendment Blakely v. Washington, No. 02-1632 (Proving fact supporting imposition of sentence within statutory maximum under Apprendi v. New Jersey) (decision below 47 P.3d 149 (Wash. App. Div. 3 2002)) Question Presented: Must fact other than prior conviction, that is necessary for upward departure from statutory standard sentencing range be proved according to procedures mandated by Apprendi v. New Jersey? Decision: Yes. Because the sentence was enhanced based on facts that were neither admitted by petitioner nor found by a jury, petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury was violated. Florida v. Nixon, No. 03-931 (Per se ineffectiveness and counsel’s concession of guilt) (decision below 857 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2003)) Question Presented: In capital murder case, did Florida Supreme Court (a) apply incorrect standard, contrary to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002), and Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), by finding defense counsel ineffective per se under United State v. Cronic despite having found counsel’s strategy not to contest overwhelming evidence of guilt but to vigorously contest sentence to be in defendant’s best interest and reasonably calculated to avoid death sentence, and (b) err in concluding that Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), prohibited trial counsel from adopting strategy, after fully informing his client, without objection, not to contest overwhelming evidence of guilt to protect best interest of his client in contesting appropriateness of imposing death penalty? Schriro v. Summerlin, No. 03-526 (Retroactivity of Ring) (decision below 341 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003)) Questions Presented: (1) Did Ninth Circuit err by holding that new rule announced in Ring is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane? Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 (2) Did Ninth Circuit err by holding that new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague’s exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance accuracy of proceedings? Decision: Ring’s holding should be classified as a “procedural” rule, which does not apply retroactively unless it was a “watershed” rule, which the Court holds it was not. 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
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]
  • 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]
  • Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q
    Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 2003 Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q. Cutler Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons How does access to this work benefit oy u? Let us know! Recommended Citation Christopher Q. Culter, Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad, 50 Clev. St. L. Rev. 335 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTHING LESS THAN THE DIGNITY OF MAN: EVOLVING STANDARDS, BOTCHED EXECUTIONS AND UTAH’S CONTROVERSIAL USE OF THE FIRING SQUAD CHRISTOPHER Q. CUTLER1 Human justice is sadly lacking in consolation; it can only shed blood for blood. But we mustn’t ask that it do more than it can.2 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 336 II. HISTORICAL USE OF UTAH’S FIRING SQUAD........................ 338 A. The Firing Squad from Wilderness to Statehood ................................................................. 339 B. From Statehood to Furman ......................................... 347 1. Gary Gilmore to the Present Death Row Crowd ................................................ 357 2. Modern Firing Squad Procedure .......................... 363 III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ................................ 365 A. A History of Pain ......................................................... 366 B. Early Supreme Court Cases......................................... 368 C. Evolving Standards of Decency and the Dignity of Man...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Delaware
    DELAWARE'S D E A T H P E N A L T Y The Facts EXECUTIONS The Delaware Supreme Court struck DESPITE CLAIMS OF down the death sentencing statute in INNOCENCE 2016. The first clemency in state history was granted in Robert Jackson was executed 2012. for murder in 2011, while his Delaware was the first state to abolish accomplice Anthony Lachette was released from prison in the death penalty in 1958, but in 1961 1996 after serving his sentence the legislature overrode the governor’s after pleading guilty to veto and reinstated the death penalty. burglary and conspiracy. In 1974, the Delaware legislature Directly before his execution, passed a law declaring the death Jackson implied that Lachette was the one responsible for penalty the mandatory sentencing the murder. for cases of first degree murder. In 1986, the method of execution changed from hanging to lethal injection and the gallows were disassembled in 2003, eliminating the possibility of death by hanging. LETHAL INJECTION Delaware’s Bishop Stands Against the Billy Bailey, sentenced to Reinstatement of Death Penalty death in 1980, chose to be executed by hanging rather than lethal injection because Bishop Francis Malooly of the Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware he did not want to be treated wrote the following in response to a “like a dog put to sleep.” legislative movement to reinstate the death penalty: “The true question at the heart of this issue is whether or not the death penalty is a just and necessary method of punishment. Pope Francis has called for the worldwide abolition of
    [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]
  • Deatii ROW U.SA
    ! DEATiiROW U.SA Spring2000 A quarlerllJ report blJ the Capital Punishment Project 0£the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. • Director of Research and Student Services, Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund TOTAL NUMBER OF DEA TH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF : . 3,670 Race of Defendant: White 1,698 (46.27%) Black 1,574 (42.89%,) Latino/Latina 321 ( 8.75%) Native American 46 ( 1.25%) Asian 31 ( .84%) Unknown at this issue 0 ( 0%) Gender: Male 3,615 (98.50%) Female 55 ( 1.50%) Juveniles: Male 69 ( 1.88%) DISPOSffiONS SINCE JANUARY 1, 1973: Executions : 625 Suicides: 54 Commutations : 90 (includingthose by the Governorof Texas resulting from favorable court decisions) Died of natural causes or killed while under death sentence: 165 Convictions/Sentences reversed : 1710 JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STA TOTES : 40 (Underlinedjurisdiction has statute but no sentencesimposed) 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.SA Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Winter 2000 Issue of October Term 1999 Cases (as of May 5, 2000) Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Bond v.
    [Show full text]
  • By Tori Alexandra Koen
    Different Dreams: An Examination of America' and Japan's National Characters An Honors Thesis (HONRS 499) by Tori Alexandra Koenig Thesis Advisor: Dr. Anthony Edmonds Ball State University Muncie, Indiana April 2008 Expected Date of Graduation: May 2009 1 Abstract When trying to distinguish what makes a member of one society different from an individual of another, the idea of national character often assumes a prominent role in the discussion. National character is the set of values that one culture treasures as the most important to the majority of individuals in that nation. This paper examines the American and Japanese national characters and looks at the fundamental dissimilarities between the two. In the United States, the definition of who is an American is based on whether or not the person appreciates the American Dream. As opposed the individualistic outlook that this ideal promotes, the Japanese share a sense of duty and view the group as the basis for society_ The contrast between these two views is clearly seen in the societies' reactions to national tragedies. To analyze this theory, I use the public's responses to the Oklahoma City bombing and the Tokyo subway sarin attacks as case studies. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Anthony Edmonds for all of his help throughout this project. Not only did he help me to create a better topic, but he also has guided me while I have worked on this paper. I want to thank Dr. Phyllis Zimmerman for her assistance with the Japanese character portions of my paper as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Execution Ritual : Media Representations of Execution and the Social Construction of Public Opinion Regarding the Death Penalty
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 5-2011 Execution ritual : media representations of execution and the social construction of public opinion regarding the death penalty. Emilie Dyer 1987- University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Recommended Citation Dyer, Emilie 1987-, "Execution ritual : media representations of execution and the social construction of public opinion regarding the death penalty." (2011). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 388. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/388 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXECUTION RITUAL: MEDIA REPRESENTATIONS OF EXECUTION AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC OPINION REGARDING THE DEATH PENALTY By Emilie Dyer B.A., University of Louisville, 2009 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville in Partial Fullfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Sociology University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky May, 2011 -------------------------------------------------------------- EXECUTION RITUAL : MEDIA REPRESENTATIONS OF EXECUTION AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC OPINION REGARDING THE DEATH PENALTY By Emilie Brook Dyer B.A., University of Louisville, 2009 A Thesis Approved on April 11, 2011 by the following Thesis Committee: Thesis Director (Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1996 The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People David C. Williams Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Williams, David C., "The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People" (1996). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 633. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/633 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MILITIA MOVEMENT AND SECOND AMENDMENT REVOLUTION: CONJURING WITH THE PEOPLE David C. Williams4 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 879 I. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS RIGHT-ARMED REVOLUTION .... 886 A. Fear of the Government ............................ 887 B. The Revolutionary Second Amendment ............. 892 C. The Importance of the Militia ...................... 896 D. The Danger of Disarmament ....................... 901 II. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS WRONG--THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ................................................. 904 A. The Framers' View of the People
    [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]
  • The Struggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads, 73 New York University Law Review
    Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1998 The trS uggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads Terry A. Maroney Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Law and Race Commons Recommended Citation Terry A. Maroney, The Struggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads, 73 New York University Law Review. 564 (1998) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/764 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STRUGGLE AGAINST HATE CRIME: MOVEMENT AT A CROSSROADS TERRY A. MARONEY* INTRODUCTION Hate crime,' far from being an anomaly, has been a means of maintaining dominant power relationships throughout United States history.2 Hate crime may be defined as acts of violence motivated by animus against persons and groups because of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin or immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, disa- bility (including, for example, HIV status), and age.3 Thus defined, * I would like to thank Brendan Fay, Thomas Hilbink, James B. Jacobs, Leslie Kahn, Jennifer Mason, Janet Prolman, Paul Schmidt, Jonathan Simon, the staff, volunteers, and clients of the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project (AVP), the students of the New York University School of Law Institute for Law and Society, and all those who agreed to be interviewed for this Note.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 50 Issue 3 Article 3 2003 Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q. Cutler Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Christopher Q. Culter, Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad, 50 Clev. St. L. Rev. 335 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTHING LESS THAN THE DIGNITY OF MAN: EVOLVING STANDARDS, BOTCHED EXECUTIONS AND UTAH’S CONTROVERSIAL USE OF THE FIRING SQUAD CHRISTOPHER Q. CUTLER1 Human justice is sadly lacking in consolation; it can only shed blood for blood. But we mustn’t ask that it do more than it can.2 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 336 II. HISTORICAL USE OF UTAH’S FIRING SQUAD........................ 338 A. The Firing Squad from Wilderness to Statehood ................................................................. 339 B. From Statehood to Furman ......................................... 347 1. Gary Gilmore to the Present Death Row Crowd ................................................ 357 2. Modern Firing Squad Procedure .......................... 363 III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ................................ 365 A. A History of Pain ......................................................... 366 B. Early Supreme Court Cases......................................... 368 C. Evolving Standards of Decency and the Dignity of Man...............................................
    [Show full text]