DOCSLIB.ORG

And Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
And Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911 University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 1996 The “Midnight Assassination Law” and Minnesota’s Anti-Death Penalty Movement John Bessler University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Recommended Citation The “Midnight Assassination Law” and Minnesota’s Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911, 22 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 577 (1996) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911 John D. Bessler reprinted from WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW VOLUME 22, NO.2 (1996) Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1758923 THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" AND MINNESOTA'S ANTI-DEATH PENALlY MOVEMENT, 1849-1911t John D. Besslertt I. INTRODUCTION........................... 578 II. THE MINNESOTA TERRITORY AND THE EARLy STATEHOOD YEARS, 1849-1867 . .. 583 A. A Public Execution on the Prairie ............ 583 B. Lynch Mobs and Frontier justice . .. 586 C. Early Abolitionist Efforts and the Execution of Anne Bilansky . .. 589 D. More Public Hangings. .. 599 III. THE EXECUTION MORATORIUM, 1868-1884 . .. 603 A. The 1868 Act ......................... 603 B. The Repeal of the 1868 Act ................ 608 Iv. THE RESUMPTION OF HANGINGS IN MINNESOTA, 1885-1889 .............................. 614 A. Daytime Executions. .. 614 B. The Barrett Boys and the Beginning of the 1889 Legislative Session ...................... 616 V. THE PASSAGE OF THE "MIDNIGHT AssAssINATION LAw" IN 1889 . .. 619 A. Abolitionist Efforts in 1889 ................ 619 B. The john Day Smith Law. .. 624 t © Copyright 1995 by John D. Bessler. All rights reserved. tt Attorney, Leonard, Street & Deinard, MinneapOlis, Minnesota; J.D. 1991, Indiana University School of Law at Bloomington; BA 1988, University of Minnesota at Minneapolis. The author extends special thanks to Bruce Beddow, Gregory Gisvold and Michael Handberg for their cooperation in making materials available for use in this Article. The author also thanks the staff of the Minnesota Historical Society and the librarians at the Minnesota State Law Library and the University of Minnesota Law School for their indispensable research assistance. A portion of this article will appear in the author's forthcoming book, tentatively entitled Death in the Dark: Midnight Executions and Capital Punishment in America, to be published by University Press. 577 578 WIUJAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22 VI. THE "MIDNIGHT AssAssINATION LAW" IN OPERATION, 1889-1905 ............................. 629 A. The First Five Hangings ................. 629 B. The U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Holden .... 643 C. Non-Compliance, Non-Enforcement .......... 648 VII. A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE "MIDNIGHT AssAssINATION LAw," 1906-1907 ............. 659 A. The Hanging of William Williams . .......... 659 B. The Gubernatorial Investigation ............ 665 C. Three Newspapers Indicted . 666 D. The District Court Ruling ................ 671 E. The Minnesota Supreme Court Case . ......... 673 VIII. THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ..•..•. 677 A. Abolitionist Efforts from 1891 to 1910 . 677 B. The 1911 Legislative Session .............. 690 IX. CONCLUSION .••.................••...... 699 X. POSTSCRIPT: THE DARK LEGACY OF MINNESOTA'S "MIDNIGHT AssAssINATION LAW" ............. 701 APPENDIX .•.•..........•.•.•.......••..• 718 I. INTRODUCTION In the United States, executions are hidden from public view. State laws, in fact, require that executions take place within prisons, and most states limit public attendance at executions to only six to twelve "reputable" or "respectable citizens."l Television coverage is not allowed.2 The death 1. ARIz. REv. STAT. ANN. § 13-705 (Supp. 1994) (asserting that a superintendent shall invite "at least tWelve reputable citizens of his selection"); ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-90- 502(d)(2) (Michie 1987) ("At the execution there shall be present ... a number of respectable citizens numbering not fewer than six (6) nor more than twelve (12)."); MD. CODE ANN., art. 27, § 73 (1957) (stating that executions shall take place in the presence of "a number of respectable citizens numbering not less than six or more than twelve"); Mo. ANN. STAT. § 546.740 (Vernon 1987 & Supp. 1992) (requiring that the chief administrative officer of the correctional facility invite "at least twelve reputable citizens, to be selected by him"); NEV. REv. STAT. § 176.355(2) (d) (1991) (allowing the director of the department of prisons to invite "not less than six nor more than nine reputable citizens"); N.H. REv. STAT. ANN. § 630:6 (1986) (stating that "the sheriff of the county in which the person was convicted ... may admit other reputable citizens not exceeding 12 ...."); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 31-14-15 (Michie 1984) (warden must invite "at least twelve reputable citizens, to be selected by him"); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15-190 (1983) ("At such execution there shall be present ... six respectable citizens ...."); PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 9711 (k)(l) (Supp. 1995) ("No person except the following shall witness any execution ... six reputable adult citizens selected by such superintendent. ..."); S.C. 1996] THE -MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" 579 penalty is cloaked in added secrecy because executions usually occur at night. Many states even mandate, by statute, that executions take place after midnight and before dawn. For example, Delaware and Louisiana authorize executions only between midnight and 3:00 A.M., and South Dakota's executions must occur between 12:01 A.M. and 6:00 A.M.lI Other states, like Wyoming and Indiana, require executions "before the hour of sunrise."4 In fact,one of the most popular times to schedule an execution is one minute after midnight, with over eighty-two percent of all executions from 1977 to 1995 occurring between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 7:30 A.M. Only rarely do executions occur during daylight hours.5 Minnesota no longer authorizes capital punishment, but the state once played a pivotal role in shaping the way in which states conduct executions in America. Indeed, while other states acted first in passing laws requiring private, nighttime execu- CODE ANN. § 24-3-550 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1995) ("At an execution ... a group of not more than two respectable citizens of the State designated by the director ... must be present. ft); see also COLO. REv. STAT. § 16-11-404 (1986) ("There shall ... be present ... such guards, attendants, and other persons as the executive director . deems desirable, not to exceed fifteen persons. ft). 2. MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-19-55(2) (1972) ("No person shall be allowed to take photographs or other recordings of any type during the execution."); TENN. CODE ANN. § 4O-23-116(c)(l) (Supp. 1995) ("Photographic or recording equipment shall not be permitted at the execution site until the execution is completed, the body is removed, and the site has been restored to an orderly condition.ft ); UTAH CODE ANN. § 77-19- 11 (5)(a) (1995) ("Photographic or recording equipment is not permitted at the execution site until the execution is completed, the body is removed, and the site has been restored to an orderly condition.ft ). 3. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. II, § 4209(0 (Supp. 1994); LA. REv. STAT. ANN. § 15:569.1 (West 1992); S.D. CODIFIED LAws ANN. § 23A-27A-17 (1988). 4. IND. CODE ANN. § 35-38-6-1 (b) (West 1986); KEN. REv. STAT. § 431.240(1) (Michie Supp. 1995) (requiring executions to take place "before sunriseft ); WYo. STAT. § 7-13-905(a) (1995) (requiring executions "before the hour of sunriseft ). Until 1995, Texas also required executions to take place "before sunrise. ft In 1995, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring lethal injections to occur after 6:00 P.M. TEx. CRiM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 43.14 (West 1996) (requiring that "the sentence shall be executed any time after the hour of 6 p.m. on the day set for the execution."). This change in the timing of executions was meant to accommodate the schedules of lawyers and judges, who are more accessible during the day. Bruce Tomaso, lOOth Inmate Executed, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Oct. 5, 1995, at 27A; Texas Murderer Dies I1y Lethal Injection, BALTIMORE SUN, Oct. 5, 1995, at 6A. Some states allow correctional officials to set the hour of execution. UTAH CODE ANN. § 77-19-6(2) (1995) ("The Department of Corrections shall determine the hour, within the appointed day, at which the judgment is to be executed.ft ). 5. See infra Appendix (listing the hour and minute that executions took place in the United States from 1977 to 1995). 580 Wll.LIAM MITCHEll LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22 tions,6 Minnesota's so-called "midnight assassination law" is the only American law requiring private, nighttime executions ever commented upon by the United States Supreme Court.' That fact alone makes the study of Minnesota's "midnight assassina­ tion law" important. However, an examination of Minnesota history also provides a fascinating microcosm of the paternalistic sentiment that led to the rise of laws requiring private, nighttime executions in America. For example, in its quest to protect "the masses" from gruesome execution spectacles, Minnesota adopted the "midnight assassination law,"8 which, like laws enacted in New York and Colorado, went so far as to make it a crime for newspapers to print any execution details.9 By exposing the 6. Many states enacted laws requiring private executions before the Minnesota Legislature passed its private execution law in 1889. For example, Pennsylvania abolished public executions in 1834, as did Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York in 1835. LoUIS P. MAsUR, RITES OF EXECUTION: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN CULTURE, 1776-186593-94 (1989); see also iii.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2018 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2018 (As of January 1, 2018) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,768 Race of Defendant: White 1,170 (42.27%) Black 1,152 (41.62%) Latino/Latina 365 (13.19%) Native American 27 (0.98%) Asian 53 (1.91%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,713 (98.01%) Female 55 (1.99%) 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 Fall 2017 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2017 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Byrd v. United States, No. 16-1371 (Driver’s expectation of privacy when not on rental lease of car) (decision below 679 Fed.Appx.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Lethal Injection, Or Choice of Gas Chamber for Those Sentenced Before November 1992) Total = 121 B = 13 W = 85 L = 18 N = 5 A= 0 U = 0
    NotiottolCJJJb Suite 1600 NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-759 Fall 1998 ) DEATH R0\1/, V.SA TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWNTO LOP: 3,517 (As of October 1, 1998) · Race of Defendant: White 1,649 (46.89%) Black 1,495 (42.51%) Latino/Latina 282 ( 8.02%) Native American 50 ( 1.42%) Asian 27 ( .77%) Unknown at this issue 14 ( • 4 0%) Gender: Male 3,469 (98.64 %) Female 48 ( 1. 36 %) Juveniles: Male 73 ( 2.08%) DISPOSITIONS SINCE JANUARY 1, 1973: Executions: 481 Suicides: 51 Commutations: 76 (including those by the Governor of Texas resulting from favorable court decisions) Died of natural causes or killed while under death sentence: 112 Convictions/Sentences reversed: 1642 JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 40 (Underlined jurisdictions have statutes 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: 1 3 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wiscons i n. Relf"""'/Off"" COfttri6..uo,u M t The NAACP Leg. I Oeferuc at Educau onal Fund. Inc. (LOF) 11 not pan Suite JOI Jtd.., 1,hl,for U.S. Swue21ll of the National Assoc1at1on for the Advancement of Colored People 127SK Street, NW 31SWm Ninth Strcct t4X pvrposes (NAACP) ah.hough LOF wu founded by the NAACP and 1u '"'°"" wm Wu hington.
    [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]
  • For Publication United States Court Of
    Case: 13-73647 10/18/2013 ID: 8827751 DktEntry: 3 Page: 1 of 43 FILED FOR PUBLICATION OCT 18 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT GLEN JONES, Jr., No. 13-16928 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:03-cv-00478-DCB v. OPINION CHARLES RYAN, Respondent - Appellee. ROBERT GLEN JONES, Jr., No. 13-73647 Petitioner, v. CHARLES RYAN, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 10, 2013* * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without (continued...) Case: 13-73647 10/18/2013 ID: 8827751 DktEntry: 3 Page: 2 of 43 San Francisco, California Before: Ronald M. Gould, Richard C. Tallman, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Gould GOULD, Circuit Judge: We confront issues concerning whether and how the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), affects the standards for when a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (“Rule 60(b)”) motion may be filed, and for when a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition may be filed. Arizona death row prisoner Robert Glen Jones, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his motion for relief from judgment filed under Rule 60(b). The district court concluded that Jones’s Rule 60(b) motion sought to raise new claims such that it actually constituted a second or successive 28 U.S.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]
  • Officials Back $39 Board Increase by VIVIAN B
    'Inside Today The Commission On Higher The student government votes The long-awaited report on the The Hartford Times goes out U.S.Sen Lowell Weicker, Education recommends that the today on whether to sent its possible health hazards of of business after 159 years, R.-Conn.. campaigns at UConn. legislature cut about $300,000 chairman to a convention in dormitory roof tarring is not leaving about 450 persons with- Stories and picture page 6. from UConn's 1977-78 budget. Kansas City, Mo. at a cost of satisfactory and another report out jobs. Story page 5. Story page 4. ■ $330 Story page 4. is ordered. Story page 5. tihmttttttntt lathj (Eamtma Serving Storrs Since 1896 VOL. LXXX NO. 33 STORRS. CONNECTICUT THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976 Officials back $39 board increase By VIVIAN B. MARTIN • said Wednesday the the fee hike was set ed in arriving at the increase proposal. possible to cut another part of the A $39 per semester increase for and recommended by a committee organ- Adams has called the $39 figure "a bare budget." he said. "If we really wanted to students eating in University-run dining ized to review the fees. The recommend- bones minimum." take risks, we could deplete the reserve halls has been initially endorsed by the ed fee is tentative, and may be increased "The people involved with the fee fund, but that's not too expedient." he administration, UConn officials said or decreased. Wiggins said. review have worked out the budget and said. Wednesday. Students in dining halls currently pay all the explanations for increases." 'I know students are going to gripe, but Leonard Hodgson, director of food $335 a semester.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment As a System*
    Capital Punishment as a System* Jack Greenberg t The contemporary debate over capital punishment has been conducted principally in terms of whether it is an effective deterrent,' appropriately retributive, 2 racially discriminatory,3 arbitrary,4 or inevitably prone to er- ror.' In support of their positions, the contending sides have offered statis- tical and anecdotal arguments on deterrence, racial discrimination, and arbitrariness, as well as value judgments concerning whether the death penalty is, on the one hand, properly retributive or, on the other, morally acceptable. But, as the debate has proceeded over the past fifteen years, courts have imposed more than 2,000 capital sentences." The resulting pattern of decisions has introduced a new means of assessing the viability of the capital sentencing process. This Article explores the implications of this pattern of capital punish- ment decisions. It argues that the capital convicting and sentencing process has necessarily become extraordinarily careful to avoid executing those who are innocent or who deserve some sentence other than death. The substantial number of defendants sentenced to death who have subse- quently been found innocent, and the much greater number who have been convicted or sentenced in violation of law, demonstrate the need to employ such scrupulous care. Because of the large number of nullified convictions and sentences that have resulted from the exercise of such care, only one person has been executed against his will during the past fifteen years; three others have been executed because they refused to contest their convictions or sentences. Yet over 1000 death-sentenced prisoners are *The data in this article was assembled by Carol Palmer, a legal assistant at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who was assisted by Andrew J.
    [Show full text]
  • Acts of Ghana
    ACTS OF GHANA FIRST REPUBLIC CRIMINAL CODE, 1960 (ACT 29) (Consolidated up to 1999. THE CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 (ACT 646). ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section PART I—GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1—PRELIMINARY MATTERS 1. Interpretation 2. Provisions Relating to a Company and its Officers 3. Definition of Public Officer, etc. 4. General Rules of Construction 5. Application of Part I to Other Offences 6. Jurisdiction Over Territorial Waters 7. Acts done Partly Beyond the Jurisdiction 8. Exclusion of Common Law 9. Offences under more than one Enactment 10. Saving for Contempt of Court CHAPTER 2—GENERAL EXPLANATIONS 11. Provisions Relating to Intent 12. Provisions Relating to Negligence 13. Provisions Relating to Causing an Event 14. Provisions relating to consent 15. Provisions relating to claim of right 16. Provisions relating to fraud 17. Provisions relating to the meaning and use of threats CHAPTER 3—ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT CRIMINAL 18. Provisions relating to attempts to commit crimes 19. Preparation for committing certain crimes CHAPTER 4—ABETMENT AND CONSPIRACY 20. Abetment of crime, and trial and punishment of abettor 21. Cases where one crime is abetted and a different crime is committed 22. Duty to prevent a felony 23. Conspiracy 24. Punishment for conspiracy 25. Harbouring criminal CHAPTER 5—GENERAL EXEMPTIONS 26. When an infant is incapable of committing crime 27. When an insane person is entitled to special verdict 28. Criminal liability of intoxicated person 29. Ignorance or mistake of fact or of law PART II—OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON CHAPTER I—JUSTIFIABLE FORCE AND HARM 30. Justification for force or harm 31.
    [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]
  • ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases ▪ February 2003
    American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases Revised Edition February 2003 Copyright © 2003 American Bar Association All rights reserved. The materials herein may be reproduced, in whole or in part, provided that such use is for informational, non-commercial purposes only and any copy of the materials or portion thereof acknowledges original publication by the American Bar Association and includes the title of the publication, the name of the author, and the legend "Copyright 2003 American Bar Association. Reprinted by permission." Requests to reproduce materials in any other manner should be addressed to: Copyrights & Contracts Department, American Bar Association, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611; Phone: 312-988-6102; FAX: 312-988-6030; E-mail: [email protected]. Library of Congress Control Number: 2003104861 ISBN 1-59031-236-8 The commentary contained herein does not necessarily represent the official position of the American Bar Association. Only the text of the black-letter guidelines has been formally approved by the American Bar Association House of Delegates as official policy. The commentary, though unofficial, serves as a useful explanation of the black-letter guidelines. Joint Project of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants Chicago, Illinois www.abalegalservices.org And the American Bar Association Special Committee on Death Penalty Representation Washington, D.C. www.abanet.org/deathpenalty Printed
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2014 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. Winter 2014 (As of January 1, 2014) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,070 Race of Defendant: White 1,323 (43.09%) Black 1,284 (41.82%) Latino/Latina 388 (12.64%) Native American 30 (0.98%) Asian 44 (1.43%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,010 (98.05%) Female 60 (1.95%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 34 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, 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: 19 Alaska, Connecticut [see note below], District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland [see note below], Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: Connecticut, Maryland and New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced in each state remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Fall 2013 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases Decided or to Be Decided in October Term 2012 or 2013 1.
    [Show full text]