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. Summer 2016 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 2016 (As of July 1, 2016) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,905 Race of Defendant: White 1,230 (42.34%) Black 1,214 (41.79%) Latino/Latina 380 (13.08%) Native American 27 (0.93%) Asian 53 (1.82%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 2,850 (98.11%) Female 55 (1.89%) 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, 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 [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively.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 2016 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2015 or 2016 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Bernard v. Minnesota, No. 14-1470 (Criminalization of refusal to take blood alcohol test) (decision below 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015)) Consolidated with Beylund v. Levi, No. 14-1507 (decision below 859 N.W.2d 403 (ND 2015)) Birchfield v. North Dakota, No. 14-1468 (decision below 858 N.W.2d 302 (ND 2015)) Question Presented: In the absence of a warrant, may a State make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person's blood? Decision: A warrantless breath test for alcohol incident to a drunk driving arrest is constitutional. A warrantless blood test is not. A person cannot be prosecuted for refusing to consent to a warrantless blood alcohol test. Utah v. Strieff, No. 14-1373 (Arrest pursuant to outstanding warrant uncovered during unlawful investigatory stop) (decision below 2015 WL 223953 (1/16/15)) Question Presented: Should evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful? Decision: No. Under “the attenuation doctrine,” evidence is admissible when there is an “intervening circumstance” between unconstitutional police conduct and the discovery of the evidence. Here, after an unconstitutional investigatory stop the police discovered an outstanding arrest warrant and then searched the defendant. The police conduct was not flagrantly illegal, which weighed against suppression of the evidence. Fifth Amendment Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, No. 15-537 (Double jeopardy acquittal and inconsistent verdicts) (decision below 790 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2015)) Question Presented: (1) Under Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) and Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009), can a vacated, unconstitutional conviction cancel out the preclusive effect of an acquittal under the collateral estoppel prong of the Double Jeopardy Clause? McDonnell v. United States, No.15-474 (Interpretation and constitutionality of Hobbs Act) (decision below 792 F.3d 478 (4th Cir. 2015)) Question Presented: (1) Is "official action" under the Hobbs Act limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and must the jury be so instructed; or, if not so limited, are the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute unconstitutional? Decision: (1) An “official act” is more than “setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event.” By narrowing the possible definition of “question” and “matter” under the statute, the Court finds the statute not unconstitutional. But since the jury was instructed under a broader definition of “official act,” the conviction must be reversed. Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, No. 15-108 (Dual sovereignty Puerto Rico/US and double jeopardy) (decision below 2015 WL 1317010 (Sup. Ct. PR March 20, 2015)) Question Presented: Are the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Federal Government separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution? Decision: No. The question of whether a government is a separate sovereign for double jeopardy purposes depends on the source of the government’s prosecutorial power. Although the US Congress granted self-rule to the Commonwealth, the source of its prosecutorial power is still the US Congress. Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418 (Convictions qualifying for sentence enhancement) (decision below 14-15733 order (11th Cir. June 9, 2015)) Question Presented: (2) Did Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), announce a new substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases that are on collateral review? (See also question under Cases Raising Other Important Federal Questions below) Decision: Yes. Johnson -- which held part of the federal law enhancing sentences for felons in possession of a gun unconstitutionally vague -- is retroactive. It is a substantive rule which changes the conduct or person subject to a criminal law. Sixth Amendment Betterman v. Montana, No. 14-1457 (Speedy Trial requirements for sentencing phase) (decision below 342 P.3d 971 (Mont. 2015)) Question Presented: Does the 6th Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause apply to the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution, protecting a criminal defendant from inordinate delay in final disposition of his case? Decision: No. The 6th Amendment’s speedy trial guarantee attaches when a defendant is arrested or formally charged, and ends once the defendant has been found guilty at trial or has pleaded guilty to criminal charges. After conviction, rules, statutes and due process offer a defendant the only recourse against inordinate delay. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, No. 15-606 (Impeaching jury to prove racial discrimination) (decision below 350 P.3d 287 (Colo. 2015)) Question Presented: May a no-impeachment rule constitutionally bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury? Eighth Amendment Moore v. Texas, No. 15-797 (Standard for determination of intellectual disability in death penalty cases) (decision below 470 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 2015)) Question Presented: Does it violate the 8th Amendment and this Court's decisions in Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed? Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 Williams v. Pennsylvania, No. 15-5040 (Former prosecuting attorney as judge on case he prosecuted) (decision below 105 A.3d 1234 (Pa. 2015)) Question Presented: Are the 8th and 14th Amendments violated by the participation of a potentially biased jurist on a multimember tribunal deciding a capital case, regardless of whether his vote is ultimately decisive? Decision: (See cases under Fourteenth Amendment, below) Fourteenth Amendment Foster v. Chatman, No. 14-8349 (Batson standard) (decision below Sup. Ct. Ga. Case No. S14e0771 (Nov. 3, 2014)) Question Presented: Did the Georgia courts err in failing to recognize race discrimination under Batson in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case? Decision: Yes. The Georgia courts’ denial of relief was clearly erroneous. Foster established a Batson violation as to 2 of the black jurors excluded. The record refuted the prosecutor’s explanations for striking the jurors. The explanations were either patently not true, or facially reasonable explanations for the strike were equally applicable to white jurors who were not struck. The prosecution’s “shifting explanations, misrepresentations of the record, and persistent focus on race” leads to the conclusion that discriminatory intent was a substantial motivating factor for the strikes. Lynch v. Arizona, No. 15–8366 (Right to inform jury of LWOP alternative to death sentence where future dangerousness at issue) (decision below 357 P. 3d 119 (Ariz. 2015)) Question Presented: Did the Arizona Supreme Court commit federal constitutional error when it determined that Lynch was not entitled to an instruction pursuant to Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994)? Decision: Yes. In a per curiam opinion the Court held that, as in Simmons, where the state inserts the issue of future dangerousness into the life or death decision in a capital case and the alternative to death is life in prison without parole, the defendant has the right under Due Process to insist that the jury be so informed. Williams v. Pennsylvania, No. 15-5040 (Former prosecuting attorney as judge on case he prosecuted) (decision below 105 A.3d 1234 (Pa. 2015)) Question Presented: Are the 8th and 14th Amendments violated by the participation of a potentially biased jurist on a multimember tribunal deciding a capital case, regardless of whether his vote is ultimately decisive? (See cases under Eighth Amendment, above) Decision: It is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment for a prosecutor to later serve as a judge in a case in which he had significant personal involvement as a prosecutor and had been involved in a critical decision in the case, such as the decision to seek the death penalty. There is “an impermissible risk of actual bias” in such circumstances. The error is structural, meaning it is not subject to harmless error review even if the judge did not cast a deciding vote in the appeal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide to the KPCW Radio News Scripts
    Guide to the KPCW Radio News Scripts 1985-2005 Parent Catalog Record: 2009.31.6 Size: 12 boxes (12.00 cubic feet) About KPCW: KPCW 91.9 FM has been on air since July 2, 1980. It reaches nearly three-quarters of Summit and Wasatch counties and boasts a larger audience that any other radio station in the area. According to the station’s research, KPCW serves over half of the adult population in the “Wasatch Back” as the only daily source of local information. It specializes in local issues, with five hours of programming a day solely dedicated to city and county news and interviews. It is a non-profit, volunteer supported organization whose mission is to educate, inform, entertain, and provide access to a diverse community with quality programming. As the NPR affiliate for Summit and Wasatch counties, it hosts programs such as Morning Edition and Wait, Wait…Don’t tell Me!. It also hosts news and entertainment programs from American Public Media (APM), Public Radio International (PRI), and the BBC World Service. When not featuring such programs, more than fifty local volunteer DJs play music that fits the station’s theme of, “Something Old, Something New, Something Covered, Something Blues.” About the KPCW Radio News Scripts: This archival collection is made up entirely of newscast scripts and news stories read on air by the journalists at KPCW, Park City’s public radio and local NPR affiliate. Topics covered include: local politics throughout Summit County and state, national, and international politics that particularly affected Park City; local crime and police matters; environmental issues including water rights; local sports; the 1998 Olympic bid and the 2002 Olympics; road conditions and construction; weather and emergencies; and other news related to Park City.
    [Show full text]
  • Fictional Documentaries and Truthful Fictions: the Death Penalty in Recent American Film
    FICTIONAL DOCUMENTARIES AND TRUTHFUL FICTIONS: THE DEATH PENALTY IN RECENT AMERICAN FILM David R. Dow* When it comes to death, most Hollywood movies cheat. They cheat by tinkering with the truth, because the truth as it ac­ tually is is too complex or too disturbing to confront honestly. (The so-called happy ending is the most famous form of such cheating.) They cheat because people generally prefer happi­ ness and simplicity to darkness and complexity, especially where their entertainment is concerned, and filmmakers tend to give people what they want. Even great movies cheat. For example, last year's Oscar winner for best picture, American Beauty, cheats egregiously. The movie (for the one or two of you who have not seen it) deals with modern times: It is about suburbia, men and women who mindlessly pursue meaningless careers, bigotry, and finally, hope and redemption. In the end, the character played by Kevin Spacey is murdered. This is not a surprise ending because the Spacey character narrates the movie in a voice-over, and he tells us as the movie opens that in less than a year he will no longer be alive. We know at the beginning that 110 minutes later Kevin Spacey's character will be dead. Spacey plays a morally ambiguous character. He is in the midst of a full-blown mid-life crisis. He is a lousy husband and a worse father. For virtually the entire length of the film, he lusts after his daughter's high school classmate. In the end, however, he gently rebuffs a neighbor's homosexual advance and-again * George Butler Research Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center.
    [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]
  • To the D.Irector of the Bureau of Land Management NM State Office April
    To the D.irector of the Bureau of Land Management NM State Office April 28, 2019 BLM, NMSO SANTA FE RECEIVED BLM New Mexico State Office APR,;~,5o 2019 Attention: State Director PAID RECEIPT # _ 301 Dinosaur Trail Santa Fe, NM 87508 We are writing to ask you to stop the proposed lease sale of lands near Chaco Canyon slated for June 2019. Fossil fuel exploration on these sites is a threat to the people who live on the surrounding land and to Chaco Canyon, New Mexico's crown jewel and the ancestral home of Native Americans of the Southwest. Protection from oil and gas activity around Chaco Canyon is essential to protecting New Mexico's uhique history, environment and vital resources. Instead of continuing to develop fossil fuels on our public lands, we need to make a just transition to renewable energy to create ways to engage in environmentally sustainable, as well as culturally appropriate, economic development. We ask you to cancel the lease sale of parcels: NM-201906-012-24; 26-46; 48-51 and NM-201906-025 & 47 to protect Chaco Canyon and the Greater Chaco Region from oil and gas activities that could destroy this designated World Heritage Site, a landmark like no other on Earth. Attached: 11,962 requests for your attention to this matter. First Name Last Name City State Zip Code Daniel Helfman 6301 MAURY HOLW TX 78750-8257 Kenneth Ruby 18Tiffany Road NH 03079 Crystal Newcomer 2350 Dusty Ln PA 17025 Timothy Post 1120 PacificAve KS 66064 Marlena Lange 23 RoyceAve NY 10940-4708 Victoria Hamlin 3145 MaxwellAve CA 94619 L.
    [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]
  • Taylor & Francis Reference Style C
    Taylor & Francis Reference Style C CSE Name-Year CSE citations are widely used for scientific journals and are based on international principles adopted by the National Library of Medicine. There are three major systems for referring to a reference within the text. This one is the name-year system, where in-text references consist of the surname of the author or authors and the year of publication of the document. There are several advantages of this system. It is easier to add and delete references. Authors are recognized in the text, and the date provided with the author name may provide useful information for the reader. Also, since the reference list is arranged alphabetically by author, it is easy to locate works by specific authors. The main disadvantage of this system relates to the numerous rules that must be followed to form an in-text reference. Also, long strings of in-text references interrupt the text and may be irritating to the reader. This guide is based on Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers, 7th edition, 2006. Note that examples in the CSE manual follow the citation-name system, so need to be converted if you are using the name-year system. EndNote for Windows and Macintosh is a valuable all-in-one tool used by researchers, scholarly writers, and students to search online bibliographic databases, organize their references, and create bibliographies instantly. There is now an EndNote output style available if you have access to the software in your library (please visit http://www.endnote.com/support/enstyles.asp and look for TF-C CSE Name-Year).
    [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]
  • Land Conservation Assistance Network 2018 ANNUAL REPORT
    Land Conservation Assistance Network 2018 ANNUAL REPORT Conservation for a Better America 2018 Annual Report l 1 Our mission is to promote the protection of endangered species, farms, forests, wetlands, and other open spaces, by empowering landowners to make smart, sustainable decisions about their land. 2 l Land Conservation Assistance Network Welcome to the Land Conservation Assistance Network! hat an amazing journey for the Land Conservation Assistance Network W (LandCAN). Over the past 18 years, thousands of individuals and businesses have visited our websites to find around 42,000 resources that help them make the best deci- sions about how to manage their land. In 2018, we continued to see a significant growth in the number of people we’ve been able to help. It’s heartwarming to know that our small organization with a staff of five in Falmouth, Maine makes this possible. We are a hidden gem in the beautiful State of Maine. We’ve received calls from landowners in the south who needed help following the devastation of hurricanes and tornadoes. People from California have used our resources following the aftermath of massive wildfires that destroyed their homes and livelihoods. LandCAN has helped landowners connect with businesses such as a woodland owner with a professional forester to create a sustainable forest management plan. These are a few examples of ways that LandCAN has assisted landowners in finding solutions. Some of you may not be aware that two years ago, we underwent a name change from Resources First Foundation to the Land Conservation Assistance Network. Research showed that the new name better reflects the mission and purpose of our organization.
    [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]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2005 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services, Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2005 (As of January 1, 2005) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,455 Race of Defendant: White 1,576 (45.62%) Black 1,444 (41.79%) Latino/Latina 356 (10.30%) Native American 39 ( 1.13%) Asian 40 ( 1.16%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,401 (98.44%) Female 54 ( 1.56%) Juveniles: Male 79 ( 2.29%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 40 (Underlined jurisdiction has statute 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: 13 Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Fall 2004 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2004 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Devenpeck v. Alford, No. 03-710 (Probable cause to arrest and qualified immunity) (decision below Alford v.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Surnames in the Tevis Family, a Family History by Mary M
    Online Connections Genealogy Across Indiana Index of Surnames in The Tevis Family, a Family History by Mary M. Bell Karen M. Wood The Tevis Family, by Professor Emeritus Mary M. Bell of Northern Illinois University, accounts for the family’s history from the early eighteenth century until the twentieth century. The book is more than just a list of names and dates allowing for a glimpse into the characters and personalities of these descendants. Photographs are also included, and the second edition offers a list of lost sons and daughters, asking readers to send any available information regarding these Tevis descendants. The Tevis name is first recorded in the United States on April 5, 1707, when Robert Tevis married Susanna Davies in All Hallows Parish in Ann Arundel County, Maryland. The family then spread westward. In Indiana, they settled mainly in Rush, Shelby, and Jefferson counties, but also in Clark, Decatur, Tipton, and White counties. Of course, throughout the years, many other surnames have been added to the Tevis family tree due to daughters marrying into other families. The following pages list a comprehensive index of all surnames in the back of Bell’s The Tevis Family. Copies of the book are available by purchase from the author; for more information, please contact Teresa Baer, Managing Editor, of Family History Publications, at [email protected] Notes 1. Mary M. Bell, The Tevis Family, 2nd ed., ([ Camden, ME?]: Penobscot Press, 2009); Mary M. Bell to Teresa Baer, September 11, 2009. Index of Surnames in The Tevis
    [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]