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. 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 [NOTE: Connecticut, Maryland and New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively.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. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Article I § 10 Ex Post Facto Clause Peugh v. United States, No. 12-62 (Use of sentencing guidelines) (decision below 675 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2012)) Question Presented: Does a sentencing court violate the Ex Post Facto Clause by using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing rather than the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, if the newer Guidelines create a significant risk that the defendant will receive a longer sentence? Decision: Yes. The Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense must be applied. United States v. Kebodeaux, No. 12-418 (Retroactive application of sex offender registration act) (decision below 687 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012)) Questions Presented: (1) Did the court of appeals err in conducting its constitutional analysis on the premise that respondent was not under a federal registration obligation until SORNA was enacted, when pre-SORNA federal law obligated him to register as a sex offender? (2) Did the court of appeals err in holding that Congress lacks the Article I authority to provide for criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 2250(a)(2)(A), as applied to a person who was convicted of a sex offense under federal law and completed his criminal sentence before SORNA was enacted? Decision: Yes. Respondent was under obligation under prior law to register. (2) The prior law was passed under authority granted by the Military Regulation Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 14, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Fourth Amendment Fernandez v. California, No. 12-7822 (Continuing assertion of 4th Amendment rights) (decision below 208 Cal.App.4th 100 (2012)) Question Presented: What is the proper interpretation of Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), specifically, must a defendant be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrantless search or is a defendant's previously-stated objection, while physically present, to a warrantless search a continuing assertion of 4th Amendment rights which cannot be overridden by a co-tenant? Maryland v. King, No. 12-207 (Collection of DNA from arrestees) (decision below 425 Md. 550 (Ct. App. Md. 2012)) Question Presented: Does the Fourth Amendment allow the States to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes? Decision: Yes. The Court likens DNA collection to fingerprinting and photographing, and holds it is a “reasonable” search after weighing the level of intrusion against the benefits of accurate identification of criminals. Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425 (Blood sample from drunk driver) (decision below 358 S.W.3d 65 (2012)) Question Presented: May a law enforcement officer obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream? Decision: No. The natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood is insufficient justification for creating a per se rule that the police may take a blood sample without obtaining a warrant. Fifth Amendment Alleyne v. United States, No. 11-9335 (Element of offense vs. sentencing factor) (decision below 457 Fed.Appx. 348 (4th Cir. 2011)) Question Presented: Should Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), be overruled? Decision: Yes. Harris is overruled. Because mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an “element” of the offense that must be submitted to a jury and not determined by a judge. Kansas v. Cheever, No. 12-609 (State’s use of evidence from court-ordered mental exam) (decision below 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. Sup. Ct. 2012)) Question Presented: When a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant's methamphetamine use, does the State violate the defendant's 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant's mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant? Decision: When a defendant introduces expert testimony about his mental status from an expert who examined him, the state does not violate his 5th Amendment rights by introducing rebuttal testimony from another expert even if the expert’s examination was pursuant to a court order in a prior case. Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246 (5th Amendment rights before arrest) (decision below 369 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. CCA 2012)) Question Presented: Does the 5th Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause protect a defendant's refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights, and if so, under what circumstances? Decision: A plurality of the Court asserts that a person must expressly invoke his 5th Amendment right not to answer in order to raise a claim that the right was denied, with two exceptions not applicable in this case: 1) he need not assert it on the stand at trial and 2) government coercion excuses failure to invoke the privilege. Merely remaining silent is not an invocation of the privilege. Two additional justices assert that petitioner would not be entitled to relief even if he had invoked the privilege because the prosecutor’s comments on his silence would not “compel” him to give self-incriminating information. White v. Woodall, No. 12-794 (Instruction on failure to testify in penalty phase of capital case) (decision below 685 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2012)) (See description under habeas cases, below.) Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 Sixth Amendment Boyer v. State of Louisiana, No. 11-9953 (Speedy trial and failure to appoint counsel) (decision below 56 So. 3d 1119 (La. Ct. App. 3rd Cir. 2011)) Question Presented: Should a state's failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years, particularly where failure was the direct result of the prosecution's choice to seek the death penalty, be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes? Decision: Certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted. Burt v. Titlow, No. 12-414 (Adequacy of counsel regarding pleas) (decision below 680 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2012)) Question Presented: (3) Does Lafler always require a state trial court to resentence a defendant who shows a reasonable probability that he would have accepted a plea offer but for ineffective assistance, and to do so in such a way as to "remedy" the violation of the defendant's constitutional right? (See also habeas cases below) Decision: Having concluded that the 6th Circuit erred in finding counsel ineffective, the Court declined to address the issue of resentencing. 2. CASES RAISING HABEAS CORPUS QUESTIONS Burt v. Titlow, No. 12-414 (AEDPA and adequacy of counsel regarding pleas) (decision below 680 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2012)) Questions Presented: (1) Did the 6th Circuit fail to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under AEDPA in holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing Respondent to maintain his claim of innocence? (2) Is a convicted defendant's subjective testimony that he would have accepted a plea but for ineffective assistance, standing alone, sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the plea? (See also 6th Amendment cases above) Decision: (1) Yes, the 6th Circuit did not use the “doubly deferential” standard of review required in guilty plea cases. The state and district court’s findings were not an unreasonable interpretation of the facts. (2) In light of the Court’s holding on the ineffectiveness issue, the Court declined to address the second issue. Descamps v. United States, No. 11-9540 (Proof of missing element of offense) (decision below 466 Fed.Appx. 563 (9th Cir. 2012)) Question Presented: Did the 9th Circuit err by applying its ruling in United States v. Aguila-Montes De Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) that, where the burglary statute is missing an element of the generic crime, a state conviction may be subject to the modified categorical approach? Decision: The modified categorical approach does not apply to statutes like the one at issue which have a single, indivisible set of elements rather than alternative elements.
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]
  • November 29, 2007 Table of Contents for Summary
    TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE Hilton Austin Hotel Austin, Texas November 29, 2007 Table of Contents for Summary A. Recognitions................................................................................................................................................................ Page 1 B. Discussion, Consideration and Possible Action Regarding Consent Items ................................................................. Page 2 C. Election of Board Officers........................................................................................................................................... Page 2 D. Report from the Presiding Officer, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (BPP) – End of the Year............................ Page 2 Statistical Report E. Report from the Chairman, Judicial Advisory Council (JAC)..................................................................................... Page 3 1. Introduction of Newly Appointed JAC Members 2. Progress on Establishing Emergency Procedures for Local Departments 3. Upcoming Sentencing Conference 4. Report on Possible Implementation of Diversion Treatment Alternative Prison (DTAP) Program Initiated by Local Prosecutors F. Report from the Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) – Update on Treatment Expansion ............................................................................................................................................. Page 3 G. Report from the Chairman of the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee (CMHCC) – Overview
    [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]
  • 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]
  • CNN.Com - 1,000Th Execution Slated for Next Week - Nov 24, 2005 11/24/2005 11:10 PM
    CNN.com - 1,000th execution slated for next week - Nov 24, 2005 11/24/2005 11:10 PM Powered by SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close 1,000th execution slated for next week An execution once every 10 days since moratorium lifted NEW YORK (AP) -- "Let's do it." With those last words, convicted killer Gary Gilmore ushered in the modern era of capital punishment in the United States, an age of busy death chambers that will likely see its 1,000th execution in the coming days. After a 10-year moratorium, Gilmore in 1977 became the first person executed following a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that validated state laws to reform the capital punishment system. Since then, 997 prisoners have been executed, and next week, the 998th, 999th and 1,000th are scheduled to die. Robin Lovitt, 41, will likely be the one to earn that macabre distinction next Wednesday. He was convicted of fatally stabbing a man with scissors during a 1998 pool hall robbery in Virginia. Ahead of Lovitt on death row are Eric Nance, scheduled to be executed Monday in Arkansas, and John Hicks, scheduled to be executed Tuesday in Ohio. Both executions appear likely to proceed. Gilmore was executed before a Utah firing squad, after a record of petty crime, killing of a motel manager and suicide attempts in prison. His life was the basis for a TV miniseries and Norman Mailer's book, "The Executioner's Song." While his case was well-known, most people today probably couldn't name even one of the more than 3,400 prisoners -- including 118 foreign nationals -- on death row in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • What About Parole on a Life Sentence on a Capital Murder Charge
    WHAT ABOUT THE PAROLE PROCESS WHEN ONE HAS A LIFE SENTENCE ON A CAPITAL MURDER CHARGE WHAT ABOUT THE PAROLE PROCESS WHEN ONE HAS A LIFE SENTENCE ON A CAPITAL MURDER CHARGE? Download this Article (Adobe Acrobat) Prepared by Bill Habern and David O’Neil Habern, O’Neil & Buckley L.L.P. Huntsville Area Office Box 8930 Huntsville, Texas 77340 (888) 942-2376 Fax (936) 435-1089 Web site paroletexas.com Houston Office 4300 Scotland Houston, Texas 77007 (713) 865-5670 Fax (713) 865-5655 copyright 2001 Habern, O’Neil & Buckley L.L.P. What About Parole on a Life Sentence on a Capital Murder Case [1] Fall, 2001 By David O’Neil and Bill Habern (Habern, O’Neil & Buckley L.L.P.) INTRODUCTION In any capital murder case where a jury must decide the fate of the defendant before it, the most nagging question some jurors face is not whether the defendant should be executed for his crime, but whether and when he will again be released to society, if he is not sentenced to death. This has been implicitly recognized by District Attorneys around the state in their strenuous and consistent opposition to proposals that Texas adopt “life without parole” as a sentencing option in capital cases. Fearing that jurors would be less inclined to impose the death penalty if they knew a defendant would never be released to society, many District Attorneys have waged an aggressive and successful battle against life without parole legislation. Their efforts were largely responsible for the recent defeat of that legislation when it was again considered last session.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocate-Vol 2-No 1-Entire Issue (12-1979)
    Advocate Vol. , No. 1 A bi-monthly oublication of the Office for Public Advocacy Dec. ,. 1979 ETHICS: QUANDARIES &TEXQUAGMIRES FITZGERALD BY: Vince Aprile Director for Professional Development Office for Public Advocacy The death of Terrence R. Fitzgerald in September of this year has left the Query: May a defense attorney ethi legal profession, in general, and his cally permit his client in a colleagues, in particular, with a pro criminal case in Kentucky to found sense of loss. It serves no enter a plea of guilty even purpose to question why he died, for though the defendant is even if answers were provided he either not willing or unable would still be gone. But we can to admit his guilt? reflect upon the incredible contribution to the practice of law that he made, "[WJhile most pleas of guilty consist of and remember for a moment the man we both a waiver of trial and an express knew. admission of guilt, the latter element is not a constitutional requisite to the Ma rti nda I e- Hubbell’s tells us that imposition of criminal penalty.1’ North "Tex" was born in 1939 and was Carolina V. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 awarded his LLB from the University S.Ct. 160, 167, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 of Kentucky School of Law in 1964. 1970. Furthermore, "fain individual For a long time I knew little more of accused of crime may voluntarily, his background, and most of what I knowingly, and understandably consent did learn came from sources other than to the imposition of a prison sentence Tex.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions Surrounding Virginia's Death Penalty James T
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 17 | Issue 3 Article 8 1983 Questions Surrounding Virginia's Death Penalty James T. Lloyd Jr. University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation James T. Lloyd Jr., Questions Surrounding Virginia's Death Penalty, 17 U. Rich. L. Rev. 603 (1983). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol17/iss3/8 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. QUESTIONS SURROUNDING VIRGINIA'S DEATH PENALTY I. INTRODUCTION On August 10, 1982, Frank J. Coppola died in Virginia's electric chair. His was the fifth execution1 since the 1976 Supreme Court decision hold- ing that a punishment of death was not unconstitutional per se.2 In the Commonwealth of Virginia, Coppola's was the first execution in over a decade.3 Coppola sought to waive his right to counsel and further appeal, hoping to be allowed to die with "human dignity" on the set execution date.4 An initial stay of execution was overturned by the United States Supreme Court hours before expiration of the court order calling for his execution.5 The execution resurrected the debate on the purposes of capital pun- ishment and heightened public awareness of the many questions sur- rounding the death penalty. This comment briefly traces the evolution of the death penalty as we know it today, and examines constitutional chal- lenges to Virginia's capital punishment statutes in light of recent deci- sions in state and federal courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocate-Vol 1-No 5-Entire Issue (8-1979)
    Advocate‘Ilie Vol. 1, No. 5 A bi-monthly publication of the Office for Public Advocacy Aug.,1979 NOTE DEFENDER OF THEMONTHEDITORSPUBLIC The August Newsletter is the first to go to print since the premeditated killing f John Spenkelink by the State of Florida. It is appropriate then, to lead this issue with the following article by Robert Pittman which appeared in the St. Petersburg Times of July 1, 1979, and is reprinted here with permission. THE VALUE OF A DOG’S LIFE AND A HUMAN LIFE This death warrant was signed, not by Gov. Bob Graham, but by the presi dent of Floridians Against Executions FAE. Rick Receveur, the Public Defender of the month, can truly be described as "Whereas the state of Florida has "a legend in his own time." Rick embarked on a series of executions; began his amazing public defender and whereas citizens of the state in career as an intern in the Jefferson order to form valid opinions of execu County Public Defender’s Office for tions need to know about them; and three semesters during law school at whereas the governor has arranged a the University of Louisville. When he deliberate program to hide the reality graduated from law school in 1975, he of executions from the citizens in became a full time public defender. whose name they are performed; now, He has served with tremendous compe therefore, is issued this warrant tency and dedication. directing the public execution of one Mixed Breed Dog at 8 a.m., The word in the Hall of Justice in Wednesday, July 4, 1979, at Fourth Louisville is that when Rick is street and Central Avenue in the city appointed to defend someone the pro of St.
    [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]
  • Anti Death Penalty Closure for Family Quotes Joystick
    Anti Death Penalty Closure For Family Quotes Unpropped and hetero Patty catalogues: which Ruperto is exterminable enough? Raimund cosponsors her xebecs pleonastically, Neo-Lamarckian and luckiest. Productive and ossified Gardiner accreting her fortieths jugulates while Spence encarnalizing some towels unbelievingly. Cookies on the anti penalty closure for family quotes exonerated number of academia, where the language of susan. Former fbi director anti death penalty closure for family to succeed. Discriminatory and death penalty closure for family members of the life? Divisive one was of death penalty closure for quotes moral weight as someone dear to death penalty is better way to say they can take an issue. Accountability is kind anti death penalty closure family quotes candidate paul clay in the first woman leader. Tool for that a death closure quotes sheet pulled up near mena, will always possible for family members of three members of closure has with all. Scott and death penalty for family quotes requests from harrisonburg, scott and charged in a statement. Agony of death penalty closure for quotes fight has played a critical opportunity to live out a member of the retribution for the. Haven for help, for family quotes privacy policy unless you and closure to death penalty for those who is often characterized as her. Health of a anti closure quotes his death penalty was murdered in relative comfort, i also witnessed the greater valley boys and closure. Lesser included charges anti death penalty closure for family does not a prisoner to death penalty to die on the university in their bodies. Fall flat on death closure family quotes attorneys tried so she is there.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process 00 Coyne 4E Final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page Ii
    00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page i Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page ii Carolina Academic Press Law Advisory Board ❦ Gary J. Simson, Chairman Dean, Mercer University School of Law Raj Bhala University of Kansas School of Law Davison M. Douglas Dean, William and Mary Law School Paul Finkelman Albany Law School Robert M. Jarvis Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern University Vincent R. Johnson St. Mary’s University School of Law Peter Nicolas University of Washington School of Law Michael A. Olivas University of Houston Law Center Kenneth L. Port William Mitchell College of Law H. Jefferson Powell The George Washington University Law School Michael P. Scharf Case Western Reserve University School of Law Peter M. Shane Michael E. Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page iii Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process fourth edition Randall Coyne Frank Elkouri and Edna Asper Elkouri Professor of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law Lyn Entzeroth Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs University of Tulsa College of Law Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page iv Copyright © 2012 Randall Coyne, Lyn Entzeroth All Rights Reserved ISBN: 978-1-59460-895-7 LCCN: 2012937426 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America 00 coyne 4e final 6/6/12 2:50 PM Page v Summary of Contents Table of Cases xxiii Table of Prisoners xxix List of Web Addresses xxxv Preface to the Fourth Edition xxxvii Preface to the Third Edition xxxix Preface to the Second Edition xli Preface to the First Edition xliii Acknowledgments xlv Chapter 1 • The Great Debate Over Capital Punishment 3 A.
    [Show full text]