DOCSLIB.ORG

National Registry of Exonerations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Registry of Exonerations Exonerations in the United States, 1989 – 2012 Report by the National Registry of Exonerations June, 2012 Samuel R. Gross Thomas & Mabel Long Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School Editor, National Registry of Exonerations 734-764-1519 [email protected] Michael Shaffer University of Michigan Law School, Class of 2011 [email protected] National Registry of Exonerations This is the first Report from the National Registry of Exonerations, a joint project of the University of Michigan Law School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The Registry can be found at exonerationregistry.org. It includes detailed information on the 873 individual exonerations in the United States from January, 1989, through the end of February, 2012, that are the main subject of the Report that follows. We will maintain this website on an ongoing basis, adding cases as we learn about them, both new exonerations that have not yet occurred and old ones that we do not now know about. Our current total is 901. We will issue periodic reports on the cases that are listed in the Registry. We welcome corrections and suggestions of any sort. We especially welcome information about exonerations that have not come to our attention. One important conclusion of the Report is that there are many more exonerations than we know about. We hope that readers and visitors to the web site will let us know about cases that we have missed, and about errors or omissions in cases that we do report. Samuel R. Gross Professor of Law University of Michigan Editor, National Registry of Exonerations Rob Warden Executive Director Center on Wrongful Convictions Northwestern University School of Law June 22, 2012 Exonerations in the U.S., 1989-2012 6/22/2012 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................. iii I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Cases ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1. The Definition of “Exoneration” .................................................................................................. 6 2. Who’s Exonerated, and by What Procedure ................................................................................. 7 3. Exonerations Found and Exonerations Missed ............................................................................. 9 4. Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 10 (i) Misclassification .................................................................................................................... 11 (a) Guilty defendants misclassified as innocent. ..................................................................... 11 (b) Innocent defendants misclassified as guilty. ..................................................................... 12 (ii) Underinclusion ...................................................................................................................... 14 III. Basic Patterns ............................................................................................................................. 18 1. Exonerations by Crime ............................................................................................................... 18 2. Exonerations over Time .............................................................................................................. 20 3. DNA and Non-DNA exonerations .............................................................................................. 22 4. Time to Exoneration ................................................................................................................... 24 5. Gender ......................................................................................................................................... 29 6. Race............................................................................................................................................. 30 7. Exonerations by Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................... 32 (i) Exonerations by state ............................................................................................................. 32 (ii) Exonerations by county ......................................................................................................... 35 IV. Some Causes of False Convictions ............................................................................................ 40 1. Overview .................................................................................................................................... 40 (i) Overall patterns ..................................................................................................................... 40 (ii) Missing data; ineffective legal defense ................................................................................ 41 2. Witnesses: Mistakes and Lies ..................................................................................................... 43 (i) Eyewitness errors ................................................................................................................... 43 (a) Suggestiveness. .................................................................................................................. 44 (b) Number of eyewitnesses. ................................................................................................... 46 (c) Initial suspicion. ................................................................................................................ 47 (d) Cross-racial identification. ................................................................................................ 48 (ii) Eyewitness lies ...................................................................................................................... 50 i Exonerations in the U.S., 1989-2012 6/22/2012 (iii) Lies in general ...................................................................................................................... 53 3. False Confessions........................................................................................................................ 57 (ii) False confessions by (possible or actual) co-defendants ...................................................... 58 (iii) False confessions by juveniles and the mentally disabled ................................................... 59 (iv) False confessions and guilty pleas ....................................................................................... 61 (v) False confessions and DNA .................................................................................................. 62 4. Bad Forensic Evidence ............................................................................................................... 63 5. Official misconduct ..................................................................................................................... 65 V. No-Crime Exonerations .............................................................................................................. 68 1. Mistakes ...................................................................................................................................... 69 (i) Shaken baby cases .................................................................................................................. 70 (ii) Arson cases ........................................................................................................................... 72 2. Fabricated Crimes ....................................................................................................................... 73 (i) Adult sexual assault................................................................................................................ 74 (ii) Child sex abuse .................................................................................................................... 75 (a) Child sex abuse hysteria cases. .......................................................................................... 75 (b) Other child sex abuse cases. .............................................................................................. 78 VI. Group Exonerations ................................................................................................................... 80 VII. Exonerations We Don’t Know About ..................................................................................... 91 VIII. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 102 ii Exonerations in the U.S., 1989-2012 6/22/2012 Acknowledgments This Report – and the Registry on which it’s based – would never have come into existence without the commitment and enthusiasm of Rob Warden and others at the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern School of Law, especially Dolores Kennedy, who oversaw the creation of the files that were the starting point, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Protecting the Innocent from False Confessions and Lost Confessions--And from Miranda Paul G
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 88 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter Winter 1998 Protecting the Innocent from False Confessions and Lost Confessions--And from Miranda Paul G. Cassell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Paul G. Cassell, Protecting the Innocent from False Confessions and Lost Confessions--And from Miranda, 88 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 497 (Winter 1998) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/98/8802-0497 TI' JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW& CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 88, No. 2 Copyright 0 1998 by Northwestern Unh-rsity, School of Law PrinW in U.S.A PROTECTING THE INNOCENT FROM FALSE CONFESSIONS AND LOST CONFESSIONS-AND FROM MIRANDA PAUL G. CASSELL" For most of the last several decades, criminal procedure scholarship-mirroring the Warren Court landmarks it was commenting on-spent little time discussing the guiltless and much discussing the guilty. Recent scholarship suggests a dif- ferent focus is desirable. As one leading scholar recently put it, "the Constitution seeks to protect the innocent."' Professors Leo and Ofshe's preceding article,2 along with ar- ticles like it by (among others) Welsh White and Al Alschuler,4 commendably adopts this approach. Focusing on the plight of an innocent person who confessed to a crime he5 did not com- mit, they recommend certain changes in the rules governing po- " Professor of Law, University of Utah College of Law ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S
    MEDWED_TRANSMITTED.DOC2 2/26/2008 1:51 PM The Innocent Prisoner’s Dilemma: Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S. Medwed∗ INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 493 I. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PAROLE ................................................ 497 A. HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND PURPOSES OF PAROLE ................................ 497 B. PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING: CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS AND POLICIES .................................................................................... 504 II. THE EFFECT OF PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING NORMS ON THE INNOCENT ............................................................................................... 513 A. PAROLE: AN INNOCENCE OPTION OF LAST RESORT ............................. 518 B. PRESSURE ON INNOCENT INMATES TO “ADMIT” GUILT ........................ 523 III. ADMISSIONS OF GUILT AND THE PAROLE RELEASE DECISION RECONSIDERED ....................................................................................... 529 A. THE DANGER OF ASSUMING THE LITIGATION PROCESS ACCURATELY FILTERS THE GUILTY FROM THE INNOCENT ......................................... 530 B. POTHOLES ON THE PATH TO REDEMPTION THROUGH THE PAROLE PROCESS ........................................................................................... 532 IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM .................................................................... 541 A. LIMITATIONS ON THE SUBSEQUENT USE OF STATEMENTS FROM PAROLE HEARINGS ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation Chart by State
    Updated 5/21/18 NQ COMPENSATION STATUTES: A NATIONAL OVERVIEW STATE STATUTE WHEN ELIGIBILITY STANDARD WHO TIME LIMITS MAXIMUM AWARDS OTHER FUTURE CONTRIBUTORY PASSED OF PROOF DECIDES FOR FILING AWARDS CIVIL PROVISIONS LITIGATION AL Ala.Code 1975 § 29-2- 2001 Conviction vacated Not specified State Division of 2 years after Minimum of $50,000 for Not specified Not specified A new felony 150, et seq. or reversed and the Risk Management exoneration or each year of incarceration, conviction will end a charges dismissed and the dismissal Committee on claimant’s right to on grounds Committee on Compensation for compensation consistent with Compensation Wrongful Incarceration can innocence for Wrongful recommend discretionary Incarceration amount in addition to base, but legislature must appropriate any funds CA Cal Penal Code §§ Amended 2000; Pardon for Not specified California Victim 2 years after $140 per day of The Department Not specified Requires the board to 4900 to 4906; § 2006; 2009; innocence or being Compensation judgment of incarceration of Corrections deny a claim if the 2013; 2015; “innocent”; and Government acquittal or and Rehabilitation board finds by a 2017 declaration of Claims Board discharge given, shall assist a preponderance of the factual innocence makes a or after pardon person who is evidence that a claimant recommendation granted, after exonerated as to a pled guilty with the to the legislature release from conviction for specific intent to imprisonment, which he or she is protect another from from release serving a state prosecution for the from custody prison sentence at underlying conviction the time of for which the claimant exoneration with is seeking transitional compensation.
    [Show full text]
  • How a Confluence of Social Movements Convinced North Carolina to Go Where the Mccleskey Court Wouldnâ•Žt
    Michigan State University College of Law Digital Commons at Michigan State University College of Law Faculty Publications 1-1-2011 Confronting Race: How a Confluence of Social Movements Convinced North Carolina to Go where the McCleskey Court Wouldn’t Barbara O'Brien Michigan State University College of Law, [email protected] Catherine M. Grosso Michigan State University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/facpubs Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation Barbara O'Brien & Catherine M. Grosso, Confronting Race: How a Confluence of Social Movements Convinced North Carolina to Go where the McCleskey Court Wouldn’t, 2011 Mich. St. L. Rev. 463 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons at Michigan State University College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Michigan State University College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONFRONTING RACE: HOW A CONFLUENCE OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONVINCED NORTH CAROLINA TO GO WHERE THE MCCLESKEY COURT WOULDN’T Barbara O’Brien & Catherine M. Grosso∗ 2011 MICH. ST. L. REV. 463 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 463 I. THE LONG STRUGGLE TO CONFRONT RACE IN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ........................................................................................... 467 A. The Constitutional Litigation Strategy Disappoints When the Court Won’t Bite .................................................................... 467 B. Back to Basics: A More Incremental Approach to Reform ......... 472 II. A CONFLUENCE OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • How and Why Illinois Abolished the Death Penalty
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 30 Issue 2 Article 2 December 2012 How and Why Illinois Abolished the Death Penalty Rob Warden Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Rob Warden, How and Why Illinois Abolished the Death Penalty, 30(2) LAW & INEQ. 245 (2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol30/iss2/2 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. 245 How and Why Illinois Abolished the Death Penalty Rob Wardent Introduction The late J. Paul Getty had a formula for becoming wealthy: rise early, work late-and strike oil.' That is also the formula for abolishing the death penalty, or at least it is a formula-the one that worked in Illinois. When Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation ending capital punishment in Illinois on March 9, 2011, he tacitly acknowledged the early rising and late working that preceded the occasion. "Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it." 2 The experience to which the governor referred was not something that dropped like a gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath and seeped into his consciousness by osmosis. Rather, a cadre of public defenders, pro bono lawyers, journalists, academics, and assorted activists, devoted tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of hours, over more than three decades, to the abolition movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Bite Mark Exonerations
    DESCRIPTION OF BITE MARK EXONERATIONS 1. Keith Allen Harward: Keith Harward was convicted of the September 1982 murder of a man and the rape of his wife. The assailant, who was dressed as a sailor, bit the rape victim’s legs multiple times during the commission of the rape. Because of the assailant’s uniform, the investigation focused on the sailors aboard a Navy ship dry-docked near the victims’ Newport News, Virginia, home. Dentists aboard the ship ran visual screens of the dental records and teeth of between 1,000 and 3,000 officers aboard the ship; though Harward’s dentition was initially highlighted for additional screening, a forensic dentist later excluded Harward as the source of the bites. The crime went unsolved for six months, until detectives were notified that Harward was accused of biting his then-girlfriend in a dispute. The Commonwealth then re-submitted wax impressions and dental molds of Harward's dentition to two ABFO board-certified Diplomates, Drs. Lowell Levine and Alvin Kagey, who both concluded that Harward was the source of bite marks on the rape victim. Although the naval and local dentists who conducted the initial screenings had excluded Harward as the source of the bites, in the wake of the ABFO Diplomates’ identifications they both changed their opinions. Harward’s defense attorneys also sought opinions from two additional forensic dentists prior to his trials, but those experts also concluded that Harward inflicted the bites; in total, six forensic dentists falsely identified Harward as the biter. At Harward's second trial, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation for Wrongful Conviction, Wrongful Incarceration, and Exoneration
    68-West–Statehouse, 300 SW 10th Ave. Topeka, Kansas 66612-1504 (785) 296-3181 ◆ FAX (785) 296-3824 [email protected] http://www.kslegislature.org/klrd December 27, 2017 COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION, WRONGFUL INCARCERATION, AND EXONERATION Exoneration Overview The National Registry of Exonerations1 (Registry) maintains the country’s largest database of exonerations. According to the Registry, 2,141 persons have been exonerated nationwide since 1989. For purposes of the Registry, a person is considered to have been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and later was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action. The official action may be: (i) a complete pardon by a governor or other competent authority, whether or not the pardon is designated as based on innocence; (ii) an acquittal of all charges factually related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted; or (iii) a dismissal of all charges related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted, by a court or by a prosecutor with the authority to enter that dismissal. The pardon, acquittal, or dismissal must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant and the defense attorney, and to the court, at the time the plea was entered.
    [Show full text]
  • Exoneration in Sweden
    This article from Erasmus Law Review is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker Exoneration in Sweden Is It Not about Time to Reform the Swedish Model? Dennis Martinsson* Abstract receives information concerning the case from the pros- ecutor. Other signs of the respect for the rule of law are This article reviews exoneration in Sweden, with a focus on that the prosecutor should indict a person only if there the procedure of applying for exoneration. First, it highlights are sufficient reasons to believe that he or she commit- some core features of Swedish criminal procedural law, nec- ted the crime and if the assessment is that an indictment essary to understand exoneration in the Swedish context. will result in a guilty verdict. Further, the prosecutor Secondly, it outlines the possibilities in Swedish law to apply has the burden of proof and a conviction requires that for exoneration, both in favour of a convicted person and to the evidence prove beyond reasonable doubt that the the disadvantage of a previously acquitted defendant. defendant committed the crime. Another feature is that Thirdly, it identifies some challenges with the current Swed- Swedish law offers rather extensive possibilities for a ish model of administering applications for exoneration. defendant who has been convicted by a district court to Fourthly, it argues that the current system should be appeal against the judgment.3 Thus, Sweden’s several reformed by introducing into Swedish law a review commit- legal safeguards ensure that criminal law cases are trea- tee that administers applications for exoneration.
    [Show full text]
  • From False Evidence Ploy to False Guilty Plea: an Unjustified Path to Securing Convictions Introduction
    COMMENT From False Evidence Ploy to False Guilty Plea: An Unjustified Path to Securing Convictions introduction On June 20, 1991, two police officers brought an African American man named Anthony Gray into custody for questioning related to the unsolved rape and murder of a woman in Calvert County, Maryland.1 During the interroga- tion, the detectives lied to Mr. Gray about the evidence police held against him. They told him that two other men had confessed to involvement in the crime and had named Mr. Gray as the killer.2 They told him that he had failed two hour-long polygraph tests.3 And they told him that they “knew” he had com- mitted the crime.4 In reality, no one had confessed to the crime or identified Anthony Gray as the perpetrator.5 Mr. Gray did not fail the polygraph tests.6 Instead, the police had gathered “a substantial amount of exculpating evidence” during the period of time when Mr. Gray was being interrogated.7 Witnesses reported having seen a lone white man driving from the crime scene in the victim’s car, and the hair evidence that police recovered could have only come from a Caucasian 1. Gray v. Maryland, No. CIV.CCB-02-0385, 2004 WL 2191705, at *2 (D. Md. Sept. 24, 2004). This account of Anthony Gray’s case is based on judicial opinions that present the factual record in the light most favorable to the defendant. 2. Gray v. Maryland, 228 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (D. Md. 2002). 3. Gray, 2004 WL 2191705, at *3.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of FLORIDA CASE NO. SC09-568 BOBBY RALEIGH, Appellant, V. STATE of FLORIDA, Appellee. on APPEAL from the CI
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC09-568 BOBBY RALEIGH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR VOLUSIA COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARTIN J. MCCLAIN Florida Bar No. 0754773 McClain & McDermott, P.A. Attorneys at Law 141 NE 30th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33334 (305) 984-8344 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Citations in this brief to designate references to the records, followed by the appropriate page number, are as follows: AT. ___@ - Record on appeal to this Court in the 1981 direct appeal; APC-T. ___@ - Record on appeal to this Court from initial Rule 3.851 from the denial of post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing; APC-R2. ___@ - Record on appeal to this Court in the curret appeal from the summary denial of post-conviction relief; All other citations will be self-explanatory or will otherwise be explained. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................ 1 A. Procedural History ................................. 1 B. Relevant Facts ..................................... 8 STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................... 15 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................... 16 ARGUMENT I MR. RALEIGH=S SENTENCE OF DEATH VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE IT IS THE RESULT OF A PROCESS THAT PERMITTED AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE OF DEATH ...................... 17 A. Introduction ...................................... 17 B. The ABA Report .................................... 24 C. Florida - An Arbitrary and Capricious Death Penalty System ............................................ 25 1. The number of executions ..................... 25 2. The exonerated ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Absent Accountability: How Prosecutorial Impunity Hinders the Fair Administration of Justice in America Scott .J Krischke
    Journal of Law and Policy Volume 19 | Issue 1 Article 14 2010 Absent Accountability: How Prosecutorial Impunity Hinders the Fair Administration of Justice in America Scott .J Krischke Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp Recommended Citation Scott .J Krischke, Absent Accountability: How Prosecutorial Impunity Hinders the Fair Administration of Justice in America, 19 J. L. & Pol'y (2010). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol19/iss1/14 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. ABSENT ACCOUNTABILITY: HOW PROSECUTORIAL IMPUNITY HINDERS THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN AMERICA Scott J. Krischke* “The primary responsibility of prosecution is to see that justice is accomplished.” – National District Attorney’s Association1 INTRODUCTION In the late afternoon of January 13, 2009, eighteen-year-old Rondell Rogers was marched from his jail cell at Orleans Parish Prison to Magistrate Court in New Orleans Criminal District Court.2 Wearing an orange jumpsuit and the chains required of the inmates of Orleans Parish Prison, Rogers took hobbled, jangling steps over to the defense table to begin a probable cause hearing. Rogers, a local kid from the tough Mid-City neighborhood of New * Scott J. Krischke, BA DePaul University, JD Candidate Brooklyn Law School (expected 2011); Law Clerk for Orleans Public Defenders (2009), Cook County Public Defender’s Office (2010), and Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn (2010– 2011); Defense Investigator, Dinolt Becnel & Wells Investigative Group, Washington, DC (2007–2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Dissecting the ABA Texas Capital Punishment Assessment Report of 2013: Death and Texas, a Surprising Improvement Patrick S
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals February 2018 Dissecting the ABA Texas Capital Punishment Assessment Report of 2013: Death and Texas, a Surprising Improvement Patrick S. Metze Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Metze, Patrick S. (2017) "Dissecting the ABA Texas Capital Punishment Assessment Report of 2013: Death and Texas, a Surprising Improvement," Akron Law Review: Vol. 51 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol51/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Metze: Death and Texas DISSECTING THE ABA TEXAS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT OF 2013: DEATH AND TEXAS, A SURPRISING IMPROVEMENT Patrick S. Metze* I. Introduction ............................................................... 220 II. Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Texas Capital Punishment Assessment Report (2013) ........................................
    [Show full text]