DOCSLIB.ORG

Death Row U.S.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Death Row U.S.A DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 2010 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. Spring 2010 (As of April 1, 2010) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,260 Race of Defendant: White 1,442 (44.23%) Black 1,351 (41.44%) Latino/Latina 389 (11.93%) Native American 37 (1.13%) Asian 40 (1.23%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,198 (98.10%) Female 62 (1.90%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 38 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico [see note, below], 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: 15 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The two men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Winter 2010 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2009 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Article I Section 9 - Ex Post Facto Carr v. United States, No. 08-1301 (Ex post facto prosecution under sex offender registry act) (decision below 551 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2008)) Questions Presented: (1) May a person be criminally prosecuted under § 2250(a) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) for failure to register when the defendant's underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated enactment of the law? (2) Does the Ex Post Facto Clause preclude prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA's enactment? United States v. Marcus, No. 08-1341 (Standard of review for ex post facto violation) (decision below 538 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2008)) Question Presented: Did the court of appeals depart from the Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by adopting as the appropriate standard for plain-error review of an asserted ex post facto violation whether "there is any possibility, no matter how unlikely, that the jury could have convicted based exclusively on pre-enactment conduct?" First Amendment United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769 (First Amendment, depiction of animal cruelty) (decision below 533 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008)) Question Presented: Is 18 U.S.C. § 48 facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment? (18 U.S.C. § 48 prohibits the knowing creation, sale, or possession of a depiction of a live animal being intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, where the conduct depicted is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, and the depiction lacks serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.) Fourth Amendment City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332 (4th Amendment right of SWAT team member) (decision below 529 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2008)) Questions Presented: (1) Does a SWAT team member have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages transmitted on his SWAT pager, where the police department has an official no-privacy policy but a non-policymaking lieutenant announced an informal policy of allowing some personal use of the pagers? (2) Did the 9th Circuit contravene this Court's 4th Amendment precedents and create a circuit conflict by analyzing whether the police department could have used "less intrusive methods" of reviewing text messages transmitted by a SWAT team member on his SWAT pager? (3) Do individuals who send text messages to a SWAT team member's SWAT pager have a reasonable expectation that their messages will be free from Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 review by the recipient's government employer? Fifth Amendment Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08-680 (Invocation of right to counsel and delay in re-interrogation) (decision below 954 A.2d 1118 (Md. 2008)) Question Presented: Is the Edwards v. Arizona prohibition against interrogation of a suspect who has invoked the 5th Amendment right to counsel inapplicable if, after the suspect asks for counsel, there is a break in custody or a substantial lapse in time (more than two years and six months) before commencing re-interrogation pursuant to Miranda? Decision: Police need only wait 14 days after a defendant invokes his rights before re- interrogating, provided the defendant has been released from custody and returned to his prior life. When a defendant in prison on a prior charge is questioned, his return to general population is considered the equivalent of return to his prior life. Renico v. Lett, No. 09-338 (Mistrial and double jeopardy) (decision below 316 Fed. Appx. 373 (6th Cir, 2009)) Question Presented: Did the 6th Circuit, in a habeas case, err in holding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in denying relief on double jeopardy grounds where the State trial court declared a mistrial after the foreperson said that the jury was not going to be able to reach a verdict? Skilling v. United States, No. 08-1394 (Vagueness of criminal statute under Constitution) (decision below 554 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2009)) Question Presented: (1) Does the federal "honest services" fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, require the government to prove that the defendant's conduct was intended to achieve "private gain" rather than to advance the employer's interests, and, if not, is § 1346 unconstitutionally vague? (See also question under 6th Amendment cases) Sixth Amendment Berghuis v. Smith, No. 08-1402 (Fair cross section of jurors) (decision below 543 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2008)) Question Presented: Did the 6th Circuit err in concluding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply “clearly established” Supreme Court precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the issue of the fair cross-section requirement under Duren v. Missouri where the 6th Circuit adopted the comparative-disparity test (for evaluating the difference between the numbers of African Americans in the community as compared to the venires), which this Court has never applied and which four circuits have specifically rejected? Decision: The 6th Circuit erred. There is no set method for determining underrepresentation, and the one chosen by the Michigan court was not unreasonable. The defendant did not prove systematic exclusion was the cause of any underrepresentation. Berghuis v. Thompkins, No. 08-1470 (Scope of the Miranda rule) (decision below 547 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2008)) Question Presented: (1) Did the 6th Circuit expand the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them? (See also question under habeas cases) Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191 (Right to confront lab analyst) (decision below 657 S.E.2d 113 (Va. 2008)) Question Presented: If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness? Florida v. Powell, No. 08-1175 (Advising suspects of right to counsel during interrogation) (decision below 998 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2008)) Questions Presented: (1) Does the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, holding that a suspect must be expressly advised of his right to counsel during custodial interrogation, conflict with Miranda v. Arizona and decisions of federal and state appellate courts? (2) If so, does the failure to provide express advice of the right to the presence of counsel during questioning vitiate Miranda warnings which advise of both (a) the right to talk to a lawyer “before questioning” and (b) the “right to use” the right to consult a lawyer “at any time” during questioning? Decision: The Court holds that the words used sufficiently informed the defendant of his right to have counsel present during questioning. Harrington v. Richter, No. 09-587 (Counsel’s choice to forego expert testimony) (decision below 578 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2009)) Question Presented: In granting habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, did the 9th Circuit deny the state court judgment the deference mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and impermissibly enlarge the 6th Amendment right to effective counsel by elevating the value of expert-opinion testimony in a manner that would virtually always require defense counsel to produce such testimony rather than allowing him to rely on cross-examination or other methods designed to create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt? (See also question under habeas cases) Magwood v. Culliver, No. 09-158 (Counsel’s failure to challenge death penalty eligibility on resentencing) (decision below 555 F.3d 968 (11th Cir. 2009)) Question Presented: (2) Did petitioner's attorney provide ineffective assistance of counsel warranting federal habeas relief by failing to raise an argument at petitioner's resentencing proceedings that would have made clear that petitioner was constitutionally ineligible for the death penalty? (See also question under habeas cases) Michigan v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IN the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No
    Case: 13-70030 Document: 00512727404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-70030 FILED August 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce ARTHUR BROWN, JR., Clerk Petitioner – Appellant v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent – Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: Texas death row inmate Arthur Brown, Jr., has exhausted all state and federal habeas appeals. He has, however, filed a Texas state petition for clemency and his execution has been stayed by the Texas courts. He moved the federal district court to allow funds to hire a mitigation specialist to assist him in his state clemency proceedings. Although Brown requested $7,500 in his motion, his mitigation specialist estimated the investigation would cost $20,000. The district court turned him down. He now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion. We find no abuse of discretion in denying the funding and AFFIRM the order of the district court denying Brown’s motion. Case: 13-70030 Document: 00512727404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2014 No. 13-70030 I. Brown was convicted of capital murder for his role in the murders of four people. We described the crime in our previous opinion as follows: Rachel Tovar and her husband, Jose, were drug dealers in Houston, Texas. They supplied marijuana and cocaine to other drug dealers, including Brown and his associates, who were from Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2013 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 2013 (As of July 1, 2013) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,095 Race of Defendant: White 1,334 (43.10%) Black 1,291 (41.71%) Latino/Latina 391 (12.63%) Native American 33 (1.07%) Asian 45 (1.42%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,034 (98.03%) Female 61 (1.97%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 35 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 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: 18 Alaska, Connecticut [see note below], District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: Connecticut 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 Spring 2013 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2012 and October Term 2013 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Article I § 10 Ex Post Facto Clause Peugh v.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 2015 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. Spring 2015 (As of April 1, 2015) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,002 Race of Defendant: White 1,284 (42.77%) Black 1,251 (41.67%) Latino/Latina 386 (12.86%) Native American 31 (1.03%) Asian 49 (1.63%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 2,948 (98.20%) Female 54 (1.80%) 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, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: Connecticut 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 Winter 2015 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases Decided or to Be Decided in October Term 2014 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Elonis v.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 2011 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. Spring 2011 (As of April 1, 2011) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,222 Race of Defendant: White 1,405 (43.61%) Black 1,345 (41.74%) Latino/Latina 393 (12.20%) Native American 36 (1.12%) Asian 42 (1.30%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,161 (98.12%) Female 61 (1.89%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 38 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, [Illinois] [see note, below], Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico [see note, below], 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: 15 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: In March 2011, a bill abolishing the death penalty passed in Illinois, effective July 1, 2011. Gov. Quinn commuted the death sentences of all Illinois prisoners.] [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The two men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Winter 2011 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2010 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Tennessee at JACKSON ______
    No. W2009-01255-SC-DDT-DD IN THE Supreme Court of Tennessee AT JACKSON _____________ STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appellee, vs. CORINIO PRUITT, Appellant. _____________ APPEAL FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON NO. W2009-01255-CCA-R3-DD CRIMINAL COURT FOR SHELBY COUNTY NO. 06-00460 _____________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE TENNESSEE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, AND THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT _____________ RUSSELL CASS ERIC G. OSBORNE* (BPR # 029719) DANIEL GREENFIELD SEEMA KAKAD JAIN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn 1501 K Street, N.W. Chicago, IL 60603 Washington, D.C. 20005 (312) 853-7000 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Amici Curiae March 4, 2013 * Counsel of Record (Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover) LA1 2659112v.9 MARY SCHMID MERGLER COLLIN P. WEDEL THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1200 18th Street, N.W. 555 W. Fifth Street Suite 1000 Suite 4000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Los Angeles, CA 90013 (202) 580-6920 (213) 896-6600 WADE V. DAVIES (BPR #016052) ROB MCKINNEY (BPR #016807) RITCHIE, DILLARD, DAVIES & Attorney at Law JOHNSON, P.C. 214 2nd Avenue North 606 W. Main Street Suite 103 Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37201 Knoxville, TN 37902 (615) 686-2115 (865) 637-0661 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIESError! Bookmark not defined. INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE .............................. xi STATEMENT OF ISSUE .................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................. 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 5 I. Imposing a Death Sentence on a Defendant Who Never Formed the Intent to Kill Violates the Proportionality Principle of the Federal and Tennessee Constitutions Because of Its Exceeding Rarity.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2011 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 2011 (As of July 1, 2011) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,220 Race of Defendant: White 1,398 (43.42%) Black 1,346 (41.80%) Latino/Latina 397 (12.33%) Native American 36 (1.12%) Asian 42 (1.30%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,157 (98.04%) Female 63 (1.96%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 37 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico [see note, below], 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: 16 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The two men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Spring 2011 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2010 and October Term 2011 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Alford v. Greene, No. 09-1478 (consolidated with 09-1454) (Interview of allegedly abused child at school without parental permission or a warrant) (decision below 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • F I L E D June 12, 2012
    Case: 11-70012 Document: 00511885201 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 12, 2012 No. 11-70012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ARTHUR BROWN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant v. RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: Arthur Brown, Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death in Texas for the 1992 murders of Jessica Quinones, Jose Guadalupe Tovar, Frank Farias, and Audrey Brown. He has applied for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) from this Court so that he can appeal the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief on his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence at the punishment phase of his trial. After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not find debatable the district court’s conclusion that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law on the Case: 11-70012 Document: 00511885201 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2012 No. 11-70012 record before it, and that Brown’s claims are not adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. We therefore DENY Brown’s request for a COA. I. Rachel Tovar and her husband, Jose, were drug dealers in Houston, Texas. They supplied marijuana and cocaine to other drug dealers, including Brown and his associates, who were from Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Death Penalty Developments in 2013: the Year in Review
    Texas Death Penalty Developments in 2013: The Year in Review A Report by the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty Texas Death Penalty Developments in 2013: The Year in Review The Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (TCADP) publishes this annual report to inform citizens and elected officials about issues associated with the death penalty in Texas during the past year. It presents information on new death sentences, executions, and stays; reduced sentences; U.S. Supreme Court developments; legislative developments; and other issues affecting the criminal justice system in the nation’s most active death penalty state. The report is available online at www.tcadp.org/TexasDeathPenaltyDevelopments2013.pdf. Death Sentences New Death Sentences New death sentences in Texas have dropped more than 75% since 2002 and remained near historic low levels in 2013. According to data compiled from news sources and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), juries condemned nine new individuals to death in Texas this year.1 This matches the total in 2012 and represents a slight increase over 2011 and 2010, when new death sentences fell to their lowest number since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Texas’ revised death penalty statute in 1976. New death sentences in Texas 40 30 37 28 20 24 10 14 14 12 11 9 9 9 0 8 8 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 For the first time in six years, no one was re-sentenced to death in Texas. See Reduced Sentences below for details on long-standing cases that were resolved with sentences other than the death penalty.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Death Penalty Developments in 2013: the Year in Review
    Texas Death Penalty Developments in 2013: The Year in Review A Report by the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty Texas Death Penalty Developments in 2013: The Year in Review The Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (TCADP) publishes this annual report to inform citizens and elected officials about issues associated with the death penalty in Texas during the past year. It presents information on new death sentences, executions, and stays; reduced sentences; U.S. Supreme Court developments; legislative developments; and other issues affecting the criminal justice system in the nation’s most active death penalty state. The report is available online at www.tcadp.org/TexasDeathPenaltyDevelopments2013.pdf. Death Sentences New Death Sentences New death sentences in Texas have dropped more than 75% since 2002 and remained near historic low levels in 2013. According to data compiled from news sources and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), juries condemned nine new individuals to death in Texas this year.1 This matches last year’s total and represents a slight increase over 2011 and 2010, when new death sentences fell to their lowest number since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Texas’ revised death penalty statute in 1976. New death sentences in Texas 40 30 37 28 20 24 10 14 14 12 11 9 9 9 0 8 8 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 For the first time in six years, no one was re-sentenced to death in Texas. See Reduced Sentences below for details on long-standing cases that were resolved with sentences other than the death penalty.
    [Show full text]
  • DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2009
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2009 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 2009 (As of July 1, 2009) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,279 Race of Defendant: White 1,457 (44.43%) Black 1,364 (41.60%) Latino/Latina 379 (11.56%) Native American 37 ( 1.13%) Asian 41 ( 1.25%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,219 (98.17%) Female 60 ( 1.83%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 38 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico [see note, below], 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: 15 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The two men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Spring 2009 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases Decided or to Be Decided in October Term 2008 and October Term 2009 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment United States v. Stevens, No.
    [Show full text]