DOCSLIB.ORG

Death Row U.S.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DEATH ROW U.S.A. Fall 2020 A quarterly report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Fall 2020 (As of October 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2553 (2553 – 180* - 877M = 1496 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,076 (42.15%) Black 1,062 (41.60%) Latino/Latina 343 (13.44%) Native American 24 (0.94%) Asian 47 (1.84%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,502 (98.00%) Female 51 (2.00%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 30 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, OregonM, PennsylvaniaM, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. M States where a moratorium prohibiting execution has been imposed by the Governor. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 23 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire [see note below], New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively. The man already sentenced remains under sentence of death.] * Designates the number of people in non-moratorium states who are not under active death sentence because of court reversal but whose sentence may be reimposed. M Designates the number of people in states where a gubernatorial moratorium on execution has been imposed. Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Summer 2020 Issue of Significant Criminal & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2019 or October Term 2020 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Torres v. Madrid, No.19-292 (Parameter of “seizure”) (decision below 769 Fed.Appx. 654 (10th Cir. 2019)) Question Presented: Is an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force a "seizure" within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, as the 8th, 9th, and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or must physical force be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a "seizure," as the 10th Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals hold? Sixth Amendment Edwards v. Vannoy, No. 19-5807 (Retroactivity of Ramos) (decision below Case No. 18-31095 (5th Cir. 5/20/19 denial of COA)) Question Presented: Does the Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), apply retroactively to cases on federal collateral review? Eighth Amendmentp Jones v. Mississippi, No. 18-1259 (Juvenile LWOP decisions) (decision below 2015-CT-00899- SCT Miss. 2018)) Question Presented: Does the 8th Amendment require the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole? 2. CASES RAISING OTHER IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTIONS Borden v. United States, No. 19-5410 (Scope of ACCA crimes) (decision below 769 Fed.Appx. 266 (6th Cir. 2019)) Question Presented: 1. Does the "use of force" clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (the "ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) encompass crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness? Brownback v. King, No. 19-546 (Interplay of FTCA and Bivens) (decision below 917 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2019)) Question Presented: Does a final judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought under § 1346(b)(1) [Federal Tort Claims Act], on the ground that a private person would not be liable to the claimant under state tort law for the injuries alleged, bar a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that is brought by the same claimant, based on the same injuries, and against the same governmental employees whose acts gave rise to the claimant's FTCA claim? Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 Carpenter v. Murphy, No. 17-1107 (Jurisdiction, “Indian reservation”) (decision below 875 F.3d 896 (10th Cir. 2017)) Question Presented: Do the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an "Indian reservation" today under 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (a)? Decision: Yes. In a per curiam opinion citing McGirt (see below), the Court affirmed the 10th Circuit’s decision that the Creek Nation remains intact and Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction over major crimes. McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 (State court jurisdiction in “Indian Country”) (decision below pc-2018-1057 (OK CCA 2019)) Question Presented: Can Oklahoma courts continue to unlawfully exercise, under state law, criminal jurisdiction as "justiciable matter" in Indian Country over Indians accused of major crimes enumerated under the Indian Major Crimes Act - which are under exclusive federal jurisdiction? Decision: No. The state courts have no jurisdiction in Indian Country over Indians accused of crimes enumerated in the IMCA. The land reserved for the Creek Nation in Oklahoma has not been ceded to the state, and remains “Indian Country.” Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 Execution Update As of October 1, 2020 Total number of executions since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment: 1526 100 98 85 80 74 71 68 66 65 56 59 60 60 53 52 45 42 46 43 43 38 37 39 35 40 31 31 28 21 25 23 23 25 22 18 18 16 20 20 11 14 14 5 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Race of defendants executed Race of victims total number 1526 total number 2229 White 855 (56.03%) White 1687 (75.68%) BlacK 519 (34.01%) BlacK 339 (15.21%) Latino/a 128 (8.39%) Latin 155 (6.95%) Native American 17 (1.11%) Native American 7 (0.31%) Asian 7 (0.46%) Asian 41 (1.84%) Gender of defendants executed Gender of victims Female 16 (1.05%) Female 1099 (49.30%) Male 1510 (98.95%) Male 1130 (50.70%) Defendant-victim racial combinations White Victim BlacK Victim Latino/a Victim Asian Victim Native American Victim White Defendant 791 51.83% 21 1.38% 18 1.18% 6 0.39% 0 0% BlacK Defendant 294 19.27% 176 11.53% 20 1.31% 16 1.05% 0 0% Latino/a Defendant 55 3.60% 3 0.20% 62 4.06% 2 0.13% 0 0% Asian Defendant 2 0.13% 0 0% 0 0% 5 0.33% 0 0% Native Amer. Def. 14 .92% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0.20% TOTAL: 1156 75.75% 200 13.11% 100 6.55% 29 1.90% 3 0.20% Note: In addition, there were 38 defendants executed for the murders of multiple victims of different races. Of those, 21 defendants were white, 11 blacK and 6 Latino. (2.49%) Death Row U.S.A. Page 4 Execution Breakdown by State State # % of Racial Combinations (see codes Total below) 1. TX 570 37.35 227 W/W (40%); 109 B/W (19%); 67 B/B (12%); 55 L/L 28* 13# 6^ (10%); 45 L/W (8%); 18 B/L (3%); 13 W/L, 10 B/A ( 2% each); 6 W/mix (1%); 4 W/B (.7%); 3 L/mix (.5%); 2 L/B, 2 L/A, 2 A/A, 2 N/W, 2 W/A, 2 B/mix (.4% each) 2. VA 113 7.40 48 W/W (43%); 36 B/W (32%); 13 B/B (12%); 4 W/B, 4 10* 3# 1^ W/mix (4% EACH); 3 L/W (3%); 1 B/L, 1 B/A, 1 W/A, 1 A/W, 1 B/mix (.9% each) 3. OK 112 7.34 61 W/W (55%); 17 B/W (15%); 14 B/B (13%); 5 N/W (5%); 3 7* 2# 3^ W/A (3%); 2 W/B, 2 B/A, 2 A/A, 2 W/mix (2% each); 1 N/N, 1 W/L, 1 B/L, 1 L/L (.9% each) 4. FL 99 6.49 58 W/W (59%); 18 B/W (18%); 8 B/B (8%); 4 L/W (4%); 3 10* 2^ W/mix (3% each); 2 L/L, 2 B/mix (2% each); 1 N/W, 1 L/B, 1 W/L, 1 L/mix (1% each) 5. MO 90 5.90 54 W/W (60%); 17 B/W, 17 B/B (19% each); 1 N/W, 1 W/B 5* 1# (1% each) 6. GA 76 4.98 48 W/W (63%); 18 B/W (24%); 10 B/B (13%) 1* 2# 1^ 7. AL 67 4.39 37 W/W (55%); 18 B/W (27%); 10 B/B (15%); 1 W/B, 1 7* 1^ B/mix % each) 8. OH 56 3.67 34 W/W (61%); 8 B/W, 8 B/B (14% each); 2 W/mix, 2 B/mix 6* (4% each); 1 B/A, 1 W/B (2% each) 9. NC 43 2.82 28 W/W (65%); 7 B/B (16%); 6 B/W (14%); 1 W/B, 1 N/N 4* 1^ (2% each) 10. SC 43 2.82 20 W/W (47%); 11 B/W (26%); 5 W/B (12%); 4 B/B (9%); 2 10* 1# W/mix (5%); 1 B/A (2%) 11. AZ 37 2.42 27 W/W (73%); 3 L/L (8%); 2 N/W (5%); 1 B/W, 1 L/W, 1 5* W/L, 1 W/mix, 1 L/mix (3% each) 12.
Recommended publications
  • Death Row U.S.A

    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.
  • UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes April 11­12, 1969

    UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes April 11­12, 1969

    UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes April 11­12, 1969 04­11­1969 Pages 1­39 BOARD OF REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM April 11, 1969 The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Donald C. Moyer Campus Student Union, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Members present: Fred M. Anderson, M. D. Mr. Thomas G. Bell Mr. James H. Bilbray (for a portion of the meeting) Mr. Archie C. Grant Mr. Procter Hug, Jr. (for a portion of the meeting) Mr. Harold Jacobsen Mrs. Molly Knudtsen Louis Lombardi, M. D. Mr. R. J. Ronzone Dr. Juanita White Members absent: Mr. Albert Seeliger Others present: Chancellor Neil D. Humphrey President N. Edd Miller (UNR) President R. J. Zorn (UNLV) Vice Chancellor Wendell A. Mordy (DRI) Mr. Daniel Walsh, Deputy Attorney General Mr. Edward L. Pine, Business Manager, UNR Mr. Herman Westfall, Business Manager, UNLV Dr. Donald Driggs, Senate Chairman (UNR) Professor Roger Miller, Senate Chairman (UNLV) Dr. Don Fowler, representing DRI Faculty Senate Mr. Edward Olsen, Director of Information (UNR) Mr. Mark Hughes, Director of Information (UNLV) Mr. Joe Bell, ASUN President Mr. Jim Hardesty, ASUN President­Elect Mr. Bill Terry, CSUN President The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Bell at 10:45 A.M. 1. Approval of Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Grant, seconded by Mr. Ronzone, the minutes of the regular meeting of March 6, 1969 were ap­ proved as submitted. 2. Acceptance of Gifts Upon motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Dr. Anderson, the following gifts and grants were accepted: University of Nevada, Reno Library Mr.
  • Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty

    Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty

    California District Attorneys Association Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty Produced in collaboration with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation MARCH 2003 GILBERT G. OTERO LAWRENCE G. BROWN President Executive Director Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty MARCH 2003 CDAA BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS DIRECTORS PRESIDENT John Paul Bernardi, Los Angeles County Gilbert G. Otero Imperial County Cregor G. Datig, Riverside County SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT Bradford Fenocchio, Placer County David W. Paulson Solano County James P. Fox, San Mateo County SECRETARY-TREASURER Ed Jagels, Kern County Jan Scully Sacramento County Ernest J. LiCalsi, Madera County SERGEANT-AT-ARMS Martin T. Murray, San Mateo County Gerald Shea San Luis Obispo County Rolanda Pierre Dixon, Santa Clara County PAST PRESIDENT Frank J. Vanella, San Bernardino County Gordon Spencer Merced County Terry Wiley, Alameda County Acknowledgments The research and preparation of this document required the effort, skill, and collaboration of some of California’s most experienced capital-case prosecutors and talented administration- of-justice attorneys. Deep gratitude is extended to all who assisted. Special recognition is also deserved by CDAA’s Projects Editor, Kaye Bassett, Esq. This paper would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the California District Attorneys Association’s Death Penalty White Paper Ad Hoc Committee. CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION DEATH PENALTY WHITE PAPER AD HOC COMMITTEE JIM ANDERSON ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TAMI R. BOGERT CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION SUSAN BLAKE CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION LAWRENCE G. BROWN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION WARD A. CAMPBELL CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE BRENDA DALY SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DANE GILLETTE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE DAVID R.
  • By Tori Alexandra Koen

    By Tori Alexandra Koen

    Different Dreams: An Examination of America' and Japan's National Characters An Honors Thesis (HONRS 499) by Tori Alexandra Koenig Thesis Advisor: Dr. Anthony Edmonds Ball State University Muncie, Indiana April 2008 Expected Date of Graduation: May 2009 1 Abstract When trying to distinguish what makes a member of one society different from an individual of another, the idea of national character often assumes a prominent role in the discussion. National character is the set of values that one culture treasures as the most important to the majority of individuals in that nation. This paper examines the American and Japanese national characters and looks at the fundamental dissimilarities between the two. In the United States, the definition of who is an American is based on whether or not the person appreciates the American Dream. As opposed the individualistic outlook that this ideal promotes, the Japanese share a sense of duty and view the group as the basis for society_ The contrast between these two views is clearly seen in the societies' reactions to national tragedies. To analyze this theory, I use the public's responses to the Oklahoma City bombing and the Tokyo subway sarin attacks as case studies. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Anthony Edmonds for all of his help throughout this project. Not only did he help me to create a better topic, but he also has guided me while I have worked on this paper. I want to thank Dr. Phyllis Zimmerman for her assistance with the Japanese character portions of my paper as well.
  • The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People

    The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People

    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1996 The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People David C. Williams Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Williams, David C., "The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People" (1996). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 633. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/633 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MILITIA MOVEMENT AND SECOND AMENDMENT REVOLUTION: CONJURING WITH THE PEOPLE David C. Williams4 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 879 I. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS RIGHT-ARMED REVOLUTION .... 886 A. Fear of the Government ............................ 887 B. The Revolutionary Second Amendment ............. 892 C. The Importance of the Militia ...................... 896 D. The Danger of Disarmament ....................... 901 II. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS WRONG--THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ................................................. 904 A. The Framers' View of the People
  • The Struggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads, 73 New York University Law Review

    The Struggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads, 73 New York University Law Review

    Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1998 The trS uggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads Terry A. Maroney Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Law and Race Commons Recommended Citation Terry A. Maroney, The Struggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads, 73 New York University Law Review. 564 (1998) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/764 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STRUGGLE AGAINST HATE CRIME: MOVEMENT AT A CROSSROADS TERRY A. MARONEY* INTRODUCTION Hate crime,' far from being an anomaly, has been a means of maintaining dominant power relationships throughout United States history.2 Hate crime may be defined as acts of violence motivated by animus against persons and groups because of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin or immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, disa- bility (including, for example, HIV status), and age.3 Thus defined, * I would like to thank Brendan Fay, Thomas Hilbink, James B. Jacobs, Leslie Kahn, Jennifer Mason, Janet Prolman, Paul Schmidt, Jonathan Simon, the staff, volunteers, and clients of the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project (AVP), the students of the New York University School of Law Institute for Law and Society, and all those who agreed to be interviewed for this Note.
  • The Death of Punishment: Searching for Justice Among the Worst of the Worst

    The Death of Punishment: Searching for Justice Among the Worst of the Worst

    The Death of Punishment: Searching for Justice Among the Worst of the Worst By Robert Blecker, Palgrave MacMillan, N.Y., 314 pages, $28 hardcover. Jeffrey Kirchmeier , New York Law Journal May 12, 2014 When Oklahoma recently botched the lethal injection of a condemned man, death penalty opponents decried the execution as inhumane. While many death penalty advocates also criticized the procedural mistakes, some people argued that the man's horrible crime justified his agony. Throughout history, humans have debated how much suffering governments should inflict on criminals, and in his new book, "The Death of Punishment: Searching for Justice Among the Worst of the Worst," New York Law School Professor Robert Blecker explores the role of retribution in the criminal justice system. While arguing that our system should be more grounded in retributive theories, he concludes that the United States both under-punishes some crimes and over-punishes others. In "The Death of Punishment," Blecker critiques a system that focuses on housing criminals as a way of punishing and preventing crime. He reasons that society gives too little weight to retributive goals of sentencing, arguing that our anger at horrible crimes justifies more severe punishments. As an advocate for the death penalty, he asserts that egregious murderers should suffer a painful, but quick, death. He prefers the firing squad to lethal injection because the former looks like punishment, not a medical procedure. Further, he complains that prisons house people in too much comfort when prisons should be punitive institutions of suffering where inmates are constantly reminded of their victims in an unpleasant environment with tasteless food.
  • SHELBY COUNTY MAYOR A. C. Wharton

    SHELBY COUNTY MAYOR A. C. Wharton

    SHELBY COUNTY MAYOR A. C. Wharton SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS David Lillard, Chairman Joe S. Ford Deidre Malone Henri E. Brooks Mike Carpenter George S. Flinn, Jr. Sidney Chism J.W. Gibson, II Joyce Avery James M. Harvey Wyatt Bunker Mike Ritz Steve Mulroy ANNUAL REPORT CRIMINAL COURT OF MEMPHIS AND SHELBY COUNTY 201 Poplar – Suite 401 Memphis, Tennessee 38103 2007 William R. Key, Criminal Court Clerk Thirtieth Judicial District At Memphis CRIMINAL COURT JUDGES Paula Skahan Division I W. Otis Higgs, Jr. Division II John P. Colton, Jr. Division III Carolyn Wade Blackett Division IV James M. Lammey, Jr. Division V W. Fred Axley Division VI Lee V. Coffee Division VII Chris Craft Division VIII W. Mark Ward Division IX James C. Beasley, Jr. Division X 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Clerk’s Profile 4 Clerk’s Photo 5 Appointed Officials 6 Organizational Chart 8 Tennessee Court Structure 9 State Trial Courts 11 Operations Division Supervisory Staff 14 Operations Statistical Information 17 Administrative Services Division Supervisory Staff 55 Administrative Services Division Statistical Information 57 Finance Division Supervisory Staff 64 Finance Division Statistical Information 67 Miscellaneous Data 74 Glossary 76 3 WILLIAM R. KEY Criminal Court Clerk Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis William R. Key was re-elected to the position of the Criminal Court Clerk and assumed the office for a fourth term on September 1, 2006. Keeper of the records for Criminal Court of Shelby County Former coach and teacher at Hillcrest High School where he taught Economics, American History, and Psychology and also coached interscholastic sports Former Administrative Assistant to Juvenile Court Judge Kenneth A.
  • Death Row U.S.A

    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.
  • When Minutes Matter

    When Minutes Matter

    When minutes matter A step-by-step guide to wire fraud recovery Created and published by: Thomas W. Cronkright II, Esq. Kenneth S. Robb, CISSP CEO/Co-Founder Cyber Security & Risk Consultant CertifID LLC Citadel Cyber Solutions, Inc. 1410 Plainfield Ave. NE 322 North Shore Dr. BLDG 1B, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49505 Pittsburgh PA 15212 616.855.0855 412-203-2207 www.certifid.com www.citadelcybersolutions.com [email protected] [email protected] Updated: May 18, 2018 WWW.CERTIFID.COM — [email protected] Roadmap to Wire Fraud Recovery A Step-by-Step Guide to Recouping Funds, Minimizing Loss and Remediating Systems. Wire fraud is rapidly becoming an epidemic in the mortgage industry. The FBI (IC3) hit a milestone last year by receiving its four-millionth complaint since the IC3 division was created in 2000. In 2017, it received 301,580 cybercrime and fraud complaints with reported losses over $1.4 Billion - Business Email Compromise (BEC) was the No. 1 cause of loss and is now being tracked as a separate cybercrime. The number of BEC victims increased 31% from 2016 to 2017 and BEC-related losses during the same period increased by 88%. Astonishingly, that number is estimated to include just 15% of the actual number of wire fraud incidents to hit the industry (Source: IC3). A tidal wave of indicators and anecdotes leave little doubt that fraudsters are only growing more sophisticated, more aggressive and more successful each day. What follows is our suggested roadmap for those businesses—and not simply title insurance-related firms, but any mortgage-related businesses—that believe they’ve been victimized by a wire fraud scheme.
  • Mccleskey's Omission: the Racial Geography of Retribution

    Mccleskey's Omission: the Racial Geography of Retribution

    McCleskey's Omission: The Racial Geography of Retribution G. Ben Cohen* I. Introduction ....................................... 65 II. McCleskey v. Kemp: Tolerating Statistical Evidence Establishing the Influence of Race ................................... 71 III. The Continued Role of Race in the Operation of the Death Penalty ............ 72 A. State Level Discrepancies Focus on Race of the Victim .. .......... 73 B. Federal Death Penalty ............................. ..... 755 IV.The Local Level of Retribution, Race, and Arbitrariness ......... ........ 788 A. The Connection Between Community and the Racial Geography of Retribution ............................... ......... 86 B. The Local Geographic Circumstances of Race and Retribution in the Death Penalty ................................ ..... 90 V. The Legal Landscape of Retribution 90 A. Kennedy v. Louisiana: Retribution Contradicts the Law's Own Ends .... 91 B. Original Sins: The Eighth Amendment Accommodation of the Angry Mob............................................... 92 VI. The Constitutional Significance of the Racial Origins of Retribution ... 93 VII. Conclusion ............................................ 98 I. INTRODUCTION Perhaps little more can be said about the 5-4 decision in McCleskey v. Kemp.' It has been given dishonorable discharge in a number of symposiums, 2 books, and law review articles.3 In the immediate aftermath of the opinion, the Harvard Law . G. Ben Cohen is Of Counsel to The Justice Center's Capital Appeals Project. In 2010, Cohen was Visiting Litigation Counsel at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute's Race and the Death Penalty Project. I McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987). 2 See Symposium, Pursuing Racial Fairness in Criminal Justice: Twenty Years After McCleskey v. Kemp, 39 COLUM. HUM. RTs. L. REV. 1 (2007); see also John H. Blume, Theodore Eisenberg & Sheri Lynn Johnson, Post-McCleskey Racial DiscriminationClaims In Capital Cases, 83 CORNELL L.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 EXECUTION OF THE MENTALLY ILL3 THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT 4 INEFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION9 FEDERAL FUNDING FOR DEATH ROW LAW CENTRES REMOVED 11 US CONGRESS ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT LEGAL APPEALS FOR DEATH ROW INMATES 12 FORMER GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI’S STATE PRISON SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY12 THIRTY-EIGHTH STATE REINTRODUCES THE DEATH PENALTY 13 THREE STATES REJECT THE RETURN OF THE DEATH PENALTY14 FIRST EXECUTIONS IN MONTANA AND PENNSYLVANIA 15 CRUELTY OF EXECUTIONS 16 TEXAS TO ALLOW VICTIM’S FAMILY TO WITNESS EXECUTIONS 17 POLL SHOWS LITTLE SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY AMONG POLICE CHIEFS 17 PARTICIPATION OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS IN THE EXECUTION PROCESS 18 PRISONERS WHO ABANDONED THEIR APPEALS AND SOUGHT EXECUTION 19 PRISONERS EXECUTED DURING 199521 STATISTICS24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Developments on the death penalty during 1995 Introduction At the end of 1995 an unprecedented number of prisoners - over 3,000 - were under sentence of death in 34 states and under US federal military law (8 prisoners) and US federal civilian law (6 prisoners). Fifty-six prisoners were executed; a higher total than in any previous single year since states revised their death penalty statutes in the mid-1970s. This brings to 313 the total number of prisoners executed in the USA since 1977. New York became the thirty-eighth state to reintroduce the death penalty in March 1995. The states of Pennsylvania and Montana carried out their first executions since the death penalty resumed in 1977. However the two prisoners executed in Pennsylvania had chosen to abandon their appeals and had sought execution.