Dea Ti-I Row, V.S.A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
N-'«ta/ OJ!i« Suite 1600 NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street AND EDUCATIONAL FUND , INC . New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 22&-7592 Winter -i 992 DEATI-I ROW, V.S.A. TOTAL NUMBEROF DEATH ROW INMATES ltNOD TO LOP: 2,676 (As of January 15, 1993) Race of Defendant : White 1,353 (50.56%) Black 1,047 (39.13%) Latino / Latina 195 ( 7.29%) Native American 48 ( 1.79%) Asian 20 ( .75%) Unkno\m at this i ssue 13 ( .49%) sex: Male 2,633 (98.39%) Female 43 ( 1.61%) DISPOSITIONS SINCE JANUARY 1, 1973 : Executions: 189 Suicides: 36 Commutations: 58 ( including those by the Governor of Texas resulting f rom favorable court decisions) Died of natural causes, or k illed while under death sentence: 64 Con v iction s / Sentenc es rever s ed : 126 8 JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 38 (Underlined jurisdictions have statutes but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona , Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, I lli nois , Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississipp i, Mi ssou ri , Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire , New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvan i a, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virg i nia , Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government , U.S. Mi litary . JURISDICTIONS WITHOUTCAPITAL PUHISBXENT STATUTES: 15 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii , I owa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia , Wisconsin. R_,,_I Offe-n Tk NA AC P l.c-J•I Dcrnu< & Ed...,. ,_. 1 hind . loc ILOF) ,. 00t parr Swtc 301 Swa, :lll! of ti,, ,.,,.,..... 1 11,_- .. .,00 lot d,c /\ d.. .., nnn, o( Colon, ! P-«>pl, t27S K Strct r. NW ) IS Wnr N,nrJ, s.,..,, IN /\/\ C P 1 •l tl,oup LDF • ., to.cic- d l,v u,, N AACP u,d wi rer 111 WasluaJtOO. DC 2ll005 Lo, M!!< k>. C A CJOOI S conv ,ucmn 1 10 NJ1,WI Uf~U LOf luJ lu,d lo r ~r , lO Yu n , w p,r, 1r (202) 682-IJOO (213) 6.24-2AO!i llo.u d .,..,_, .,,, ,u fl olT,c, ...! bt.d,, : Fu · (202) 682-1312 Fu 121l) 62A-«J7S ~· IN THEU.S. SUPREMECOURT CASES DECIDED OCTOBER1992 TERM A. Capital Cases Richmond v. Lewis, 506 u.s. __ ,121 Grahamy. Collins, No. 91-7580, 52 L.Ed.2d 411, 113 S.ct. __ Cr. L. Rpr. 3029. Questions (December 1, 1992). Improper presented: (1) May state limit weighing of unconstitutionally capital sentencing jury's vague "heinous, atrocious or cruel" consideration of 17-year-old aggravating factor in Arizona defendant's youth, recognized capital sentencing held not cured repeatedly by this court as by state appellate review, where powerful mitigating factor, to concurring state judges did not answering whether he acted reweigh remaining valid aggravating "deliberately" and might be factors against the mitigating dangerous in future, and afford no circumstances. other basis for taking youth into account? (2) May state similarly Dobbs v. Zant, No. 92-5579, 1993 WL limit jury's consideration of such 6892 (January 13, 1993) (per defendant's positive character and curiam). Court of Appeals erred in unfortunate circumstances of his not considering full sentencing family's background? [Argued transcript in determination of 10/14/92) whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance, where Herrera v. Collins, No. 91-7328, ~ closing argument at penalty phase 112 S. ct. 1074, 117 L. Ed.2d 279, was discovered after initial 60 USLW 3577 Questions presented: decision finding effective (1) Does it violate Eighth and assistance of counsel and flatly Fourteenth Amendments to execute a contradicted counsel's assertions person who has been convicted of in key respects . murder but who is innocent? (2) If so, must state courts CASES TO BE DECIDED provide meaningful mechanism for OCTOBER 1992 TERM hearing claims of actual innocence in federal court for adjudicating ).. Capital Cases claims of actual innocence in death penalty cases? [Argued 10/6/92) Godinez v, Moran, No. 92-725, 52 Cr. L. Rptr. 3101. Question Arave Y, Creech, No. 91-1160, s2 presented: Whether federal courts Cr. L. Rpr. 3026. Question can require a heightened standard presented: Is Idaho's statutory of mental competency when state aggravating factor that authorizes criminal defendant enters plea of death penalty for murderers guilty and waives counsel. committed with utter disregard for human life unconstitutionally vague because limiting construction announced by Idaho Supreme Court does not require that factor be 2 denied with reference to occurrence existing precedent "dictated" of specifically defined acts? Falconer's holding under Teague v. Lockhart y. Fretwell, No. 91-1393, ~- 52 er. L. Rpr. 3027. Question Brecht v. Abrahamson. No. 91-7358, presented: Did court below err in 52 Cr. L. Rpr. 3029. Question concluding that habeas petitioner presented: When considering was denied his Sixth and Fourteenth violations of Doyle Y, Ohio, 426 Amendment right to effective U.S. 610 (1976), in federal habeas assistance of counsel at sentencing corpus proceedings, is it phase of his capital-felony murder consistent with constitutional due trial, on ground that he suffered process and Sixth Amendment right prejudice when his trial counsel to trial by jury to abandon failed to make "double-counting" standard of review of whether objection, based on Collins v. constitutional error was harmless Lockhart, to trial court's beyond a reasonable doubt and submission to jury of pecuniary substitute standard of whether gain aggravating circumstance, in error substantially affected the light of claim that Collins was course of trial? contrary to opinion of this Court in Jurek v. Texas? [Argued 11/ 3/92) Withrow y. Williams, No. 91-1030, 52 Cr. L. Rpr. 3026. Questions B, Non-capital presented: (1) Do federal courts on habeas corpus review of state Wisconsin v. Mitchell , No. 92-515, court convictions have jurisdiction 52 Cr. L. Rptr. 3101. Question to find habeas petitioner's ~ presented: Whether First Amendment statement involuntary, in case in prohibits states fro m providing which sole Fifth Amendment issue greater maximum penalties for raised in state court, and in crimes if fact-finder determines habeas petition, was whether that a criminal offender state ment was admitted in violation intentionally selected his or her of prophylactic Miranda rules, crime victim because of the state court having found that victim's race, color, religion, or petitioner was not in custody? (2) other specified status. In case in which premise of Fifth Amendment ruling is finding of Gil more v. Tayl o r . No. 9 1-1 7 38 , 52 Miranda violation, and petitioner Cr.L. Rptr . 3001. Cour t below held has had one full and fair that rule announced in Falcon er v. opportunity to raise Miranda claim ~, 905 F.2d 112 9 (7th Cir . 1990 ) in state court, should collateral -- Illinois pattern jury charge review of same claim on habeas concerning murder and manslaughter corpus petition be precluded? (3) violated due process since If collateral review is available potentially misled jury about i n such case, is confession allocution of burden of proving or following warnings involuntary disproving factor that reduces merely because police indicate murder to manslaughter -- is not possib i lity of lenient treatment if new rule for Teague purposes, but accused tells truth, and would was instead dictated by Boyde y. adoption of such rule on habeas California , 494 u.s. 310 (1990). corpus violate principles of Sawyer Question presented: Whether court v. Smith, 111 L.Ed.2d. 193 (1990), ~ below erred by holding that ) and Teague v, Lane, 489 u.s. 288 (1989) ? [Argued 11/3/92) Sullivan v, Louisiana. No. 92-5129, 52 er. L. Rpr. 3046. Question presented: Is a reasonable doubt instruction, which is constitutionally deficient under cage v, Louisiana 111 s.ct. 32a (1990) subject to harmless error analysis? Additions or corrections, contact Kica Matos, Research Director 4 ---..Execution Update Total number of executions to date since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment (there were no executions in 1976): 184 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 1 0 2 0 1 2 5 21 18 18 25 11 16 23 14 27 1 Sex of Defendants Executed Sex of Victims total number 189 total number 248 Female ............ 1 ( .53%) Female ..•••.•.•. 115 (46.37%) Male ....... 188 (99.47%) Male • •• •.•• 133 (53.63%) Race of Defendants Executed Race of victims White .......••.. 104 (55.03%) White •.••••••••• 207 (83.47%) Black .......•.... 74 (39.15%) Black ..•...••.••• 32 (12.90%} Latino .....•... 10 ( 5.29%) Latino .••.•••.•• 5 ( 2.02%) Native American ..• l ( .53%) Asian ....•••..•••. 4 ( 1.61%} Defendant-Victim Racial Combinations ~ White Defendant and White Victim ...•..... ................•. 138 (56.65%) Black Victim ..................•• 1 ( .40%) Asian Victim ....•......•..... 1 ( .40%) Black Defendant and White Victim ........... .. ........ ...... 62 (25.00%) Black Victim ..... .... .........•• 31 (12.50%) Asian Victim .. ......... 2 ( .81%} Latino Victim ..•.• l ( .40%) Latino Defendant and White Victim ................... .... ........ 6 ( 2.42%) Latino Victim ............... 4 ( 1.61%) Asian Victim ........... l ( .40%) Native American and White Victim ........ .. ........... ......•.• 1 ( .40%) 5 Execution Breakdown by State 1. TX ••••••• 54 (28.57%)7* 2. FL .•••..• 29 (15.34%) 3. IA •••••.• 20 (10 . 58\) 4. VA •••••• • 17 ( 8.99\)* 5. GA •••• ••• 15 ( 7.94\) 6. AL ••••••• 10 ( 5. 29\) 7. MO • ••••••• 7 ( 3 . 70\)** 8. NV •••••••• 5 ( 2 . 65%)***** 9. NC • •••.••• 5 ( 2.65%) 10. SC •••••••• 4 ( 2.12\) 11. MS ••••• • •• 4 ( 2.12\) 6 ..,..-.. Date of Name of State Race Sex of Execution Defendant/Number of Def/ Victim Multiple Victims Victim 01-17-77 1. Gary Gilmore[*] UT W/W M 05-25-79 2. John Spinkellink FL W/W M lQ-22-79 3.