DOCSLIB.ORG

Calendar No. 731

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Calendar No. 731 Calendar No. 731 107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 2d Session SENATE 107–315 THE INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 OCTOBER 16, 2002.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 486] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 486) to reduce the risk that innocent persons may be executed, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favor- ably thereon, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Purpose and summary ................................................................................... 1 II. Legislative history ......................................................................................... 2 III. Votes of the Committee ................................................................................. 6 IV. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 7 V. Section-by-section analysis ............................................................................ 42 VI. Cost estimate .................................................................................................. 46 VII. Regulatory impact statement ........................................................................ 46 VIII. Minority views of Senator Hatch .................................................................. 47 IX. Changes in existing law ................................................................................ 216 I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY The purpose of the Innocence Protection Act, S. 486, is to help reduce the risk both that innocent persons will be put to death and that those guilty of violent crimes will remain at large. The bill, as amended and reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would improve the administration of justice by (1) providing eligible in- mates access to DNA testing to establish innocence; (2) authorizing 19–010 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 23:52 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR315.XXX SR315 2 grants to assist States in improving systems for the appointment of capital defense attorneys; (3) authorizing grants to train State and local prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges in handling cap- ital cases; (4) increasing compensation of individuals wrongfully convicted in Federal court; (5) staying the execution of inmates whose cases are pending in the U.S. Supreme Court; and (6) estab- lishing a student loan forgiveness program for prosecutors and pub- lic defenders. II. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY A. 106TH CONGRESS The Innocence Protection Act was first introduced as S. 2073 on February 10, 2000, by Senators Leahy, Levin, Feingold, Moynihan and Akaka. A revised version of the bill was introduced as S. 2690 on June 7, 2000, by Senators Leahy, Smith of Oregon, Collins, Levin, Jeffords, Feingold, Moynihan, Akaka, Kerrey, and Wellstone. Representatives William Delahunt, Ray LaHood, and nine cosponsors introduced the measure in the House of Represent- atives as H.R. 4167 on April 4, 2000. On June 13, 2000, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing enti- tled ‘‘Post-Conviction DNA Testing: When is Justice Served?’’, chaired by Senator Hatch. The witnesses included two State Attor- neys General—Drew Edmonson of Oklahoma and Elliott Spitzer of New York—and three members of the Department of Justice’s Na- tional Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence—George Clarke, Deputy District Attorney in San Diego, CA; James Wooley, a partner in the law firm of Baker & Hostetler and a former Fed- eral prosecutor; and Barry Scheck, cofounder of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City. The other witnesses were Enid Camps, Deputy Attorney Gen- eral for the State of California; Charles Baird, a former judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and cochair of the Constitu- tion Project’s National Committee to Prevent Wrongful Executions; Joshua Marquis, District Attorney of Clatsop County, OR; and Den- nis Fritz, a man wrongfully convicted of rape and murder who was exonerated through DNA testing after serving 12 years in Okla- homa prisons. Incident to the June 13 hearing, the Committee received letters in support of S. 2690 from former Associate Deputy Attorney Gen- eral Bruce Fein and Prof. Larry Yackle of Boston University Law School. Other items submitted for the hearing record included the following: a memorandum entitled ‘‘The Effect of the Innocence Protection Act on State Sovereignty’’; a letter from former F.B.I. Di- rector William S. Sessions to Senator Hatch dated June 12, 2000; Chapters I–III of the National Institute of Justice report entitled ‘‘Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial,’’ pub- lished in June 1996; Chapters I–III of the National Institute of Justice report entitled ‘‘Postconviction DNA Testing: Recommenda- tions for Handling Requests,’’ published in September 1999; and the executive summary of ‘‘A Broken System: Error Rates in Cap- ital Cases, 1973–1995,’’ published in June 2000 by professors at Co- lumbia University. VerDate 0ct 09 2002 23:52 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR315.XXX SR315 3 One week after the Senate hearing, the House Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing on H.R. 4167. Testifying in support of the legislation were Illinois Governor George Ryan; New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer; Stephen Bright, Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights; Gerald Kogan, former Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court and cochair of the National Committee to Prevent Wrongful Executions; Prof. James Coleman, Jr., of the Duke University School of Law, on behalf of the American Bar As- sociation (ABA); Peter Neufeld, cofounder of the Innocence Project; and Kirk Bloodsworth of Cambridge, MD, who was the first capital defendant freed as a result of DNA testing. Testifying against the legislation were two State prosecutors, Stuart VanMeveren, Dis- trict Attorney in Fort Collins, CO, on behalf of the National Dis- trict Attorneys Association, and California Deputy Attorney Gen- eral Ward Campbell. B. 107TH CONGRESS Senators Leahy, Smith of Oregon, Collins and 13 additional co- sponsors introduced S. 486 on March 7, 2001. The same day, Rep- resentatives Delahunt, LaHood and 116 cosponsors introduced an identical version of the bill, H.R. 912, in the House of Representa- tives. 1. Hearings On June 27, 2001, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill entitled ‘‘Protecting the Innocent: Ensuring Competent Counsel in Death Penalty Cases,’’ chaired by Senator Leahy. Wit- nesses testifying in support of the bill were: Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis; Stephen Bright, Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights; Beth Wilkinson, a former Federal prosecutor and cochair of the Constitution Project’s Death Penalty Initiative (for- merly the National Committee to Prevent Wrongful Executions); and Michael Graham, a former death row inmate who was exoner- ated in December 2000. Testifying against the bill were Alabama Attorney General William Pryor; Ronald Eisenberg, Deputy District Attorney in Philadelphia; and Kevin Brackett, Deputy Solicitor, 16th Circuit, South Carolina. The Committee received written statements and letters regard- ing various State capital defense systems from Steven Benjamin (Virginia); David Bruck (South Carolina); Bryan Stevenson (Ala- bama); Clive Stafford Smith (Louisiana); Charles Press (Mis- sissippi); Michael Pescetta (Nevada); Maureen Kearney Rowley (Pennsylvania); Maurie Levin (Texas); and Denise Young (Arizona). Other items submitted at the hearing included the executive sum- mary of a report entitled ‘‘The Crisis in Post-Conviction Represen- tation in Capital Cases since the Elimination by Congress of Fund- ing for the Post-Conviction Defender Organizations,’’ published by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in 1999 and updated in 2001; a statement by Norman Lefstein, Dean of the Indiana Uni- versity School of Law, on behalf of the ABA; a summary of the rec- ommendations of the Constitution Project’s Death Penalty Initia- tive; an open letter from a number of current and former prosecu- tors, law enforcement officers, and Justice Department officials, en- dorsing S. 486; and a letter from Charles Lloyd, an attorney who VerDate 0ct 09 2002 23:52 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR315.XXX SR315 4 represented Michael Graham’s codefendant, Albert Burrell, describ- ing the ‘‘shocking incompetence’’ of Burrell’s trial lawyers. The Judiciary Committee continued its examination of the Na- tion’s capital punishment systems on June 18, 2002, with a hearing chaired by Senator Leahy entitled, ‘‘Protecting the Innocent: Pro- posals to Reform the Death Penalty.’’ This hearing addressed S. 486 and a number of other bills introduced in the 107th Congress designed to reform systems of capital punishment: S. 233, the Na- tional Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2001; S. 800, the Criminal Justice Integrity and Innocence Protection Act of 2001; and S. 2446, the Confidence in Criminal Justice Act of 2002. The wit- nesses were Representatives Delahunt and LaHood; Barry Scheck; Prof. Larry Yackle of the Boston University School of Law; Prof. James Liebman of the Columbia Law School; Paul A. Logli, State’s Attorney for Winnebago County, IL, on behalf of the National Dis-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Making a Place for Touch DNA in Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statutes, 62 Cath
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 62 Issue 3 Spring 2013 Article 7 2013 Can’t Touch This? Making a Place for Touch DNA in Post- Conviction DNA Testing Statutes Victoria Kawecki Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Victoria Kawecki, Can’t Touch This? Making a Place for Touch DNA in Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statutes, 62 Cath. U. L. Rev. 821 (2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol62/iss3/7 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Can’t Touch This? Making a Place for Touch DNA in Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statutes Cover Page Footnote J.D. Candidate, May 2014, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law; B.A., 2011, Gettysburg College. The author wishes to thank John Sharifi for his exceptional and invaluable insight, guidance, dedication, tenacity, and inspiration throughout this process. She would also like to thank her colleagues on the Catholic University Law Review for their work on this Comment, and her legal writing professors, who taught her to question what she thinks she may know and to always lead with her conclusion. This comments is available in Catholic University Law Review: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol62/iss3/7 CAN’T TOUCH THIS? MAKING A PLACE FOR TOUCH DNA IN POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING STATUTES Victoria Kawecki+ DNA testing is to justice what the telescope is for the stars: not a lesson in biochemistry, not a display of the wonders of magnifying optical glass, but a way to see things as they really are.
    [Show full text]
  • Here Is a “Policy” Or “Custom” When There Was Significant Evidence of Brady Violations by the Orleans Parish District Attorney in This and Many Other Cases
    No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- EARL TRUVIA; GREGORY BRIGHT, Petitioners, v. HARRY F. CONNICK, in his capacity as District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans; GEORGE HEATH, Detective, Individually and in his official capacity as Officer of the City of New Orleans Police Department; JOSEPH MICELI, Individually and in his official capacity as Officer of the City of New Orleans Police Department; THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; EDDIE JORDAN, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ERWIN CHEMERINSKY PHILLIP E. FRIDUSS Counsel of Record LANDRUM, FRIDUSS UNIVERSITY OF & ASH, LLC CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 8681 Highway 92 SCHOOL OF LAW Suite 400 401 E. Peltason Woodstock, Georgia 30189 Irvine, California 92697-8000 (678) 384-3012 (949) 824-7722 [email protected] [email protected] ROBIN BRYAN CHEATHAM WILLIAM T. MITCHELL ADAMS & REESE, LLP MICHAEL HOFFER One Shell Square CRUSER & MITCHELL, LLP 701 Poydras St., Suite 4500 275 Scientific Dr. New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 Suite 2000 (504) 581-3234 Norcross, Georgia 30092 [email protected] (404) 881-2622 [email protected] [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Secretaries & Executive Directors
    History of MACo 5 Executive Secretaries & Executive Directors Robert Lovelace: June 1960 - November 1961 Bill Ratchford: November 1961 - October 1962 Thomas Kelly: October 1962 - January 1964 Bill Ratchford: January 1964 - November 1968 Joe Murnane: November 1968 - May 1978 Wallace “Wally” Hutton: October 1978 - July 1981 Althea “Tee” O'Connor: September 1981 - August 1985 Raquel Sanudo: June 1985 - June 1991 David Bliden: July 1991 - Present Since the first Executive Director was hired in 1960, the men and women who have held that position have come from varied career backgrounds. The responsibilities of the position have changed and duties have been expanded and diversified. Similarly, the MACo staff has grown, from the charter staff of Executive Secretary Lovelace and a stenographer, to the seven staff members who serve the organization today. Each Executive Director has not only redefined the position, but, along with his or her staff, has helped to shape and develop MACo itself. Robert Lovelace As discussed in the previous chapter, Robert Lovelace, a former city manager, began his duties with the Association upon the establishment of the Symons Hall office beginning June 1, 1960. Per the agreement with the University of Maryland, he joined their staff as a lecturer in American Government. As the first Executive Secretary, as it was then called, Lovelace set the pace and provided a basic structure for those that would come after him. As is the case today, in 1960 the SACCOM Board was made up of county officials for whom Association service was only one aspect of their responsibilities; Lovelace was the first person involved with the organization that could focus wholly on its development.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement Future Development and Operations
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND June 2001 Fort George G. Meade, Maryland Directorate of Public Works Environmental Management Office Fort Meade, Maryland 20755 U.S. Army Military District of Washington Fort Lesley J. McNair Washington, D.C. 20319 .... FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcrSTATMENT···- LEAD AGENCY: Department of the Army, Military District of Washington. TITLE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: Future Development and Operations Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. AFFECTED JURISDICTION: State of Maryland, Anne Arundel and Howard Counties. PROPONENT REVIEWED BY: Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Management Office, Fort Meade, Maryland 20755. REVIEWED BY: U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 20319. END OF WAITING PERIOD AFTER FILING: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. ABSTRACT: An environmental assessment (EA) prepared in April 1999 determined that potentially significant adverse impacts to traffic and air quality could result from the proposed future development and operations at Fort Meade. Pursuant to NEPA, this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was undertaken to evaluate, in detail, the environmental and socioeconomic effects of future development and operations at the installation, specifically planned new construction and associated demolition activities. The Proposed Action includes development and operations expected to occur on the installation between 2001 and 2005. To provide the specificity needed for reasonable predictions of environmental consequences, 11 projects were identified by the Fort Meade Master Planner for consideration within the Proposed Action as being representative of the expected build out. Alternative A consists of constructing 9 of the 11 projects, excluding the two projects least likely to occur; their elimination reduces the number of additional personnel by 272, or 30 percent of the 912 additional personnel included in the Proposed Action.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [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]
  • Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative V. Hogan
    Case 1:16-cv-01021-ELH Document 1 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 61 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE INITIATIVE, 1111 Park Avenue, Suite 151 Baltimore, MD 21201 County of Residence: Baltimore City CALVIN MCNEILL # 163182 Jessup Correctional Institution 7800 House of Correction Road Jessup, MD 20794 County of Residence: Anne Arundel NATHANIEL FOSTER # 174-966 COMPLAINT FOR Maryland Correctional Institution DECLARATORY RELIEF, Hagerstown INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND 18601 Roxbury Road ATTORNEY’S FEES Hagerstown, MD 21746 County of Residence: Washington Civil Action No. ________________ KENNETH TUCKER # 130-850 Jessup Correctional Institution 7800 House of Correction Road Jessup, MD 20794 County of Residence: Anne Arundel Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN, In his official capacity 100 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 County of Residence: Anne Arundel ! 1! ! Case 1:16-cv-01021-ELH Document 1 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 61 DAVID BLUMBERG, In his official capacity Hampton Plaza, 300 East Joppa Road Suite 1000 Towson, Maryland 21286 County of Residence: Baltimore STEPHEN MOYER, In his official capacity Hampton Plaza, 300 East Joppa Road Suite 1000 Towson, Maryland 21286 County of Residence: Baltimore WAYNE WEBB, In his official capacity Hampton Plaza, 300 East Joppa Road Suite 1000 Towson, Maryland 21286 County of Residence: Baltimore Defendants. COMPLAINT NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This challenge is brought by and on behalf of Maryland “juvenile lifers” -- individuals who were sentenced to life in prison in state courts for acts committed when they were minors, without appropriate consideration of their youth. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be denied a meaningful opportunity for release, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • State V. Crumpton: How the Washington State Supreme Court Improved Access to Justice in Post-Conviction DNA Testing
    Washington Law Review Volume 90 Number 3 10-1-2015 State v. Crumpton: How the Washington State Supreme Court Improved Access to Justice in Post-Conviction DNA Testing Jordan McCrite Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Jordan McCrite, Notes and Comments, State v. Crumpton: How the Washington State Supreme Court Improved Access to Justice in Post-Conviction DNA Testing, 90 Wash. L. Rev. 1395 (2015). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol90/iss3/8 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 11 - McCrite.docx (Do Not Delete) 10/23/2015 12:50 PM STATE V. CRUMPTON: HOW THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT IMPROVED ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING Jordan McCrite* Abstract: Post-conviction DNA testing is a valuable tool for ensuring innocent people are not wrongfully incarcerated. Society has strong interests in confirming that available, yet previously untested, DNA evidence matches the person convicted. Access to post-conviction DNA testing, however, has been limited to maintain finality and avoid an over-burdened court system. This Note examines post-conviction DNA testing in Washington State, particularly after the 2014 Washington State Supreme Court decision, State v. Crumpton. In Crumpton, a majority of the Court—over a strongly worded dissent—read a favorable presumption into Washington’s post-conviction DNA testing statute.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-1608 Petition 68098.Pdf
    Filing #61228839E-Filed08/31/201706:42:25PM RECEIVED, 08/31/201706:43:31 PM,Clerk,Supreme Court APPENDIX A University of Colorado at Boulder Department of sociology Ketchum 173 Michael L. Radelet 327 UCB Professor Boulder, Colorado 803094327 (303) 735-5811 Direct 932 2 8878 °'°'ª ° °ªª Affidavit ofMichael L. Radelet State of Colorado, County of Boulder The undersigned, Michael L. Radelet, hereby declares under penalty ofperjury: 1. I received a Ph.D. in sociology from Purdue University in 1977. After two years of postdoctoral training in Psychiatry at the University ofWisconsin Medical School, Ijoined the faculty at the University ofFlorida in 1979. After twenty-two years ofservice at that university (including the last five as Chair, Department of Sociology), I moved to the University of Colorado in September 2001 as a tenured Professor of Sociology, a position I still retain. I served as the Chair ofthe Sociology Department at the University of Colorado from 2004-2009. 2. Since 1981 I have published six books and six dozen scholarly papers, in the nation's top sociology, criminology, and lawjournals, relating to various aspects of capital punishment. See, for example, Miscarriages ofJustice in Potentially Capital Cases, 40 STANFORD LAW REVIEW 21-179 (1987); FACING THE DEATHPENALTY (Temple University Press, 1989); Choosing Those Who WillDie: Race and the Death Penalty in Florida, 43 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW 1-34 (1991); IN SPITE OF INNOCENCE (Northeastern University Press, 1992); EXECUTING 2 THE MENTALLY ILL (Sage Publications, 1993); THE HISTORY OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN COLORADO (University Press of Colorado, 2017). I have also testified on issues relating to the death penalty before committees ofthe U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Veritable Revolution: the Court of Criminal Appeal in English
    A VERITABLE REVOLUTION: THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL IN ENGLISH CRIMINAL HISTORY 1908-1958 A THESIS IN History Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS by CECILE ARDEN PHILLIPS B.A. University of Missouri-Kansas City, 1986 Kansas City, Missouri 2012 © 2012 CECILE ARDEN PHILLIPS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A VERITABLE REVOLUTION: THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL IN ENGLISH CRIMINAL HISTORY 1908-1958 Cecile Arden Phillips, Candidate for the Masters of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2012 ABSTRACT In a historic speech to the House of Commons on April 17, 1907, British Attorney General, John Lawson Walton, proposed the formation of what was to be the first court of criminal appeal in English history. Such a court had been debated, but ultimately rejected, by successive governments for over half a century. In each debate, members of the judiciary declared that a court for appeals in criminal cases held the potential of destroying the world-respected English judicial system. The 1907 debates were no less contentious, but the newly elected Liberal government saw social reform, including judicial reform, as their highest priority. After much compromise and some of the most overwrought speeches in the history of Parliament, the Court of Criminal Appeal was created in August 1907 and began hearing cases in May 1908. A Veritable Revolution is a social history of the Court’s first fifty years. There is no doubt, that John Walton and the other founders of the Court of Criminal Appeal intended it to provide protection from the miscarriage of justice for English citizens convicted of criminal offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing the Real World of Racial Injustice in the Criminal Justice System Donna Coker
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 93 Article 1 Issue 4 Summer Summer 2003 Foreword: Addressing the Real World of Racial Injustice in the Criminal Justice System Donna Coker Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Donna Coker, Foreword: Addressing the Real World of Racial Injustice in the Criminal Justice System, 93 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 827 (2002-2003) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/03/9304-0827 THEJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW& CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 93, No. 4 Copyright 0 2003 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. SUPREME COURT REVIEW FOREWORD: ADDRESSING THE REAL WORLD OF RACIAL INJUSTICE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DONNA COKER* Reading Supreme Court decisions in criminal cases often feels like falling down the rabbit hole:1 a bizarre adventure where nothing is what the Court says it is and circular reasoning passes for analysis. In the Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, "there is a tendency ... to pretend that the world we all know is not the world in which law enforcement operates."'2 This is a "raceless world... a constructed reality in which most police officers do not act on the basis of considerations of race, the facts underlying a search or seizure can be evaluated without examining the influence of race, and the applicable constitutional mandate is wholly unconcerned with race." 3 It is a world in which abuse of power by law * Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Conviction Dna Testing: When Is Justice Served?
    S. HRG. 106–1061 POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING: WHEN IS JUSTICE SERVED? HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 13, 2000 Serial No. J–106–88 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74–753 WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 68 DeWine, Hon.
    [Show full text]