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. Winter 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. Winter 2020 (As of January 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2620 (2,620 – 189* - 906M = 1525 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,103 (42.10%) Black 1,089 (41.56%) Latino/Latina 353 (13.47%) Native American 27 (1.03%) Asian 47 (1.79%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,567 (97.98%) Female 53 (2.02%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 31 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, ColoradoM, 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: 22 Alaska, 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 [NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively.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 Fall 2019 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2019 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Kansas v. Glover, No. 18-556 (Vehicle stop, reasonable suspicion) (decision below 422 P.3d 64 (Kan. 2018)) Question Presented: For purposes of an investigative stop under the 4th Amendment is it reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary? 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 Ramos v. Louisiana, No 18-5924 (Unanimous verdict guarantee) (decision below 231 So.3d 44 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017)) Question Presented: Does the 14th Amendment fully incorporate the 6th Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict? Eighth Amendment Kahler v. Kansas, No.18-6135 (Insanity defense) (decision below 410 P.3d 105 (Kan. 2018)) Question Presented: Do the 8th and 14th Amendments permit a state to abolish the insanity defense? Mathena v. Malvo, No. 18-217 (Interpretation of retroactivity decision) (decision below 893 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2018)) Question Presented: Did the 4th Circuit err in concluding -- in direct conflict with Virginia's highest court and other courts -- that a decision of this Court (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)), addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision (Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)), applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question? McKinney v. Arizona, No. 18-1109 (Application of capital law and resentencing) (decision below 426 P.3d 1204 (Ariz. 2018)) Question Presented: 1) Was the Arizona Supreme Court required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted? 2) Does the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), require resentencing? Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 Fourteenth Amendment Ramos v. Louisiana, No 18-5924 (Unanimous verdict guarantee) (decision below 231 So.3d 44 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017)) Question Presented: Does the 14th Amendment fully incorporate the 6th Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict? 2. CASES RAISING HABEAS CORPUS QUESTIONS Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943 (Successive habeas petition) (decision below 5/8/2018 CTA 5 ORDER) Question Presented (By the Court): Whether and under what circumstances should a timely Rule 59 (e) motion be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)? 3. CASES RAISING OTHER IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTIONS 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)? Hernandez v. Mesa, No. 17-1678 (Bivens claim against “rogue” federal officer) (decision below 885 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 2018)) Question Presented: When plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established 4th and 5th Amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, can and should the federal courts recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)? Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, No. 18-7739 (Necessity of formal objection for “reasonableness review” of sentence) (decision below 746 Fed.Appx. 403 (5th Cir. 2018)) Question Presented: Is a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant's sentence? 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? Walker v. United States, No. 19-373 (Mens rea) (decision below 769 Fed.Appx. 195 (6th Cir. 2019)) Question Presented: Can a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness qualify as a ''violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)? Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 Execution Update As of January 1, 2020 Total number of executions since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment: 1512 Race of defendants executed Race of victims total number 1512 total number 2206 White 845 (55.89%) White 1668 (75.61%) Black 517 (34.19%) Black 339 (15.37%) Latino/a 127 (8.40%) Latin 153 (6.94%) Native American 16 (1.06%) Native American 5 (0.23%) Asian 7 (0.46%) Asian 41 (1.86%) Gender of defendants executed Gender of victims Female 16 (1.06%) Female 1084 (49.14%) Male 1496 (98.94%) Male 1122 (50.86%) Defendant-victim racial combinations White Victim Black Victim Latino/a Victim Asian Victim Native American Victim White Defendant 781 51.65% 21 1.39% 18 1.19% 6 0.40% 0 0% Black Defendant 292 19.31% 176 11.64% 20 1.32% 16 1.06% 0 0% Latino/a Defendant 55 3.64% 3 0.20% 61 4.03% 2 0.13% 0 0% Asian Defendant 2 0.13% 0 0% 0 0% 5 0.33% 0 0% Native Amer. Def. 14 .93% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0.13% TOTAL: 1144 75.66% 200 13.23% 99 6.55% 29 1.92% 2 0.13% 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. (2.51%) Death Row U.S.A. Page 4 Execution Breakdown by State State # % of Racial Combinations (see codes Total below) 1. TX 567 37.50 225 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 7.47 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 7.41 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 6.55 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 89 5.89 53 W/W (60%); 17 B/W, 17 B/B (19% each); 1 N/W, 1 W/B 5* 1# (1% each) 6. GA 75 4.96 47 W/W (63%); 18 B/W (24%); 10 B/B (13%) 1* 2# 1^ 7.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outdoor Market Under Construction
    SPORTS: BASEBALL TEAM STRUGGLES AGAINST UTA, PAGE 10 1 • FOOD: TESTING OUT LITTLE-KNOWN FORT WORTH RESTAURANTS, PAGE 5 Wednesday, April 24, 2002 TCU DAILY SKIFF In its 100th year of service to Texas Christian University • Vol. 99 • Issue 107 • Fort Worth, Texas • www.skiff.tcu.edu Today'sNews Area mom STATE NEWS Outdoor market under construction FORT WORTH — A Tarrant prepares to County assistant district attorney Over $2.3 million in federal, lo- (plants and fresh cut flowers), has resigned after being arrested Workers transform cal and private funds were used to Frost Bites (Italian ice cream), by police who say she was drunk complete the construction of the Coffee Haus (gourmet coffee, deploy with in public and threatened an offi- abandoned building Santa Fe Warehouse built in 1937, desserts and prepared foods), Hot cer's job. Rawie said. Damn Tamales (Mexican pre- The Pulse on Page 2 into city attraction According to the Fort Worth pared foods), GO Texas (a Texas Air Force Public Market Web site, the mar- store that sells Texas gifts) and NATIONALNEWS BY ANTHONY KIRCHNER ket will be split into two parts in- Lone Star Wines, according to the PLACENT1A, Calif. — A Staff Reporter cluding an indoor six-day-a-week Web site. mile-long freight train plowed Construction workers will be venue inside the Santa Fe Ware- The outdoor market will em- 300 Fort Worth head-on into a commuter train working for the next month to fin- house where fresh food vendors phasize retailing fresh food to its during rush hour Tuesday, killing ish transforming an old, abandoned will operate.
    [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]
  • Give Me Dignity by Giving Me Death": Using Balancing to Uphold Death Row Volunteers' Dignity Interests Amidst Executive Clemency
    "GIVE ME DIGNITY BY GIVING ME DEATH": USING BALANCING TO UPHOLD DEATH ROW VOLUNTEERS' DIGNITY INTERESTS AMIDST EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY NICOLE F. DAILO ABSTRACT Oregon death row inmate Gary Haugen recently became the first criminal defendant to challenge a state governor's exercise of the executive clemency power. By suing to expedite his impending execution amidst Governor John Kitzhaber's decision to temporarily suspend the death penalty in Oregon, Haugen raised significant questions about the scope of a governor's clemency power and the dignity interests implicated when death row inmates "volunteer" to die by foregoing further appeals of their cases. This Note proposes adoption of a balancing test to evaluate governors' grants of clemency, arguing that state courts should uphold a death row inmate's decision to "volunteer" for execution if the grant of clemency does not align with traditional clemency objectives recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. This Note also suggests additional measures states can take to better protect and advance death row inmates' dignity interests. * Class of 2014, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; B.A. Communication 2011, University of Southern California. I would like to thank Professor Elizabeth Henneke for her insightful suggestions and guidance as well as the Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice for its invaluable editing and advice on this Note. I would also like to thank my wonderful friends and family, especially Rod and Christie Dailo, for their unwavering love and support. 249 250 REVIEW OFLA WAND SOCIAL JUSTICE [Vol.23:2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................ ........ 250 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Death Penalty Developments in 2016: the Year in Review
    EMBARGOED UNTIL THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2016, 12:01 AM CDT Texas Death Penalty Developments in 2016: The Year in Review Executive Summary The Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (TCADP) – a statewide advocacy organization based in Austin, Texas – publishes this annual report to inform citizens and elected officials about issues associated with the death penalty during the past year. The report cites these recent death penalty developments in Texas: • In 2016, new death sentences remained at their lowest level since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state’s revised capital punishment statute in 1976. Jurors condemned three individuals to death, but rejected the death penalty in a fourth case. • Application of the death penalty remains racially biased. Over the last five years, 80% of death sentences have been imposed on people of color. • Use of the death penalty also remains geographically isolated. Just seven counties account for approximately two-thirds of all new death sentences in Texas since 2012. • For the second consecutive year, there were no new death sentences in Harris or Dallas Counties. • The State of Texas put seven people to death in 2016, the lowest number of executions in two decades. Texas accounted for more than one-third of all U.S. executions. • Of the seven men put to death by the State of Texas in 2016, two were Hispanic and five were white. It was the first time since 1984, and only the second year since the resumption of executions in 1982, that no African-Americans were executed in Texas. • Nearly half of the individuals executed by the State of Texas over the last two years had a significant impairment.
    [Show full text]
  • Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and Welcome to the Death
    Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and welcome to the Death Penalty Information Center’s podcast exploring issues related to capital punishment. In this edition, we will discuss the legal process in death penalty trials and appeals. How is a death penalty trial different from other trials? There are several differences between death penalty trials and traditional criminal proceedings. In most criminal cases, there is a single trial in which the jury determines whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty, the judge then determines the sentence. However, death penalty cases are divided into two separate trials. In the first trial, juries weigh the evidence of the crime to determine guilt or innocence. If the jury decides that the defendant is guilty, there is a second trial to determine the sentence. At the sentencing phase of the trial, jurors usually have only two options: life in prison without the possibility of parole, or a death sentence. During this sentencing trial, juries are asked to weigh aggravating factors presented by the prosecution against mitigating factors presented by the defense. How is a jury chosen for a death penalty trial? Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. The legal counsel for both the prosecution and defense have an opportunity to submit questions to determine any possible bias in the case. However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • Race, Religion and Innocence in the Karla Faye Tucker and Gary Graham Cases
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Law Faculty Scholarly Articles Law Faculty Publications Spring 2006 Litigating Salvation: Race, Religion and Innocence in the Karla Faye Tucker and Gary Graham Cases Melynda J. Price University of Kentucky College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Melynda Price, Litigating Salvation: Race, Religion and Innocence in the Karla Faye Tucker and Gary Graham Cases, 15 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 267 (2006). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Publications at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Litigating Salvation: Race, Religion and Innocence in the Karla Faye Tucker and Gary Graham Cases Notes/Citation Information Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 2006), pp. 267-298 This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/266 LITIGATING SALVATION: RACE, RELIGION AND INNOCENCE IN THE KARLA FAYE TUCKER AND GARY GRAHAM CASES MELYNDA J. PRICE* I. INTRODUCTION "If you believe in it for one, you believe in it for everybody. If you don't believe in it, don't believe in it for anybody." -Karla Faye Tucker' "My responsibility is to make sure our laws are enforced fairly and evenly without preference or special treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • 138904 03 Dirtmile.Pdf
    breeders’ cup dirt mile BREEDERs’ Cup DIRT MILE (GR. I) 7th Running Santa Anita Park $1,000,000 Guaranteed FOR THREE-YEAR-OLDS AND UPWARD ONE MILE Northern Hemisphere Three-Year-Olds, 123 lbs.; Older, 126 lbs. Southern Hemisphere Three-Year-Olds, 120 lbs.; Older, 126 lbs. All Fillies and Mares allowed 3 lbs. Guaranteed $1 million purse including travel awards, of which 55% of all monies to the owner of the winner, 18% to second, 10% to third, 6% to fourth and 3% to fifth; plus travel awards to starters not based in California. The maximum number of starters for the Breeders’ Cup Dirt Mile will be limited to twelve (12). If more than twelve (12) horses pre-enter, selection will be determined by a combination of Breeders’ Cup Challenge Winners, Graded Stakes Dirt points and the Breeders’ Cup Racing Secretaries and Directors panel. Please refer to the 2013 Breeders’ Cup World Championships Horsemen’s Information Guide (available upon request) for more information. Nominated Horses Breeders’ Cup Racing Office Pre-Entry Fee: 1% of purse Santa Anita Park Entry Fee: 1% of purse 285 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 Phone: (859) 514-9422 To Be Run Friday, November 1, 2013 Fax: (859) 514-9432 Pre-Entries Close Monday, October 21, 2013 E-mail: [email protected] Pre-entries for the Breeders' Cup Dirt Mile (G1) Horse Owner Trainer Alpha Godolphin Racing, LLC Lessee Kiaran P. McLaughlin B.c.4 Bernardini - Munnaya by Nijinsky II - Bred in Kentucky by Darley Broadway Empire Randy Howg, Bob Butz, Fouad El Kardy & Rick Running Rabbit Robertino Diodoro B.g.3 Empire Maker - Broadway Hoofer by Belong to Me - Bred in Kentucky by Mercedes Stables LLC Brujo de Olleros (BRZ) Team Valor International & Richard Santulli Richard C.
    [Show full text]
  • CNN.Com - 1,000Th Execution Slated for Next Week - Nov 24, 2005 11/24/2005 11:10 PM
    CNN.com - 1,000th execution slated for next week - Nov 24, 2005 11/24/2005 11:10 PM Powered by SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close 1,000th execution slated for next week An execution once every 10 days since moratorium lifted NEW YORK (AP) -- "Let's do it." With those last words, convicted killer Gary Gilmore ushered in the modern era of capital punishment in the United States, an age of busy death chambers that will likely see its 1,000th execution in the coming days. After a 10-year moratorium, Gilmore in 1977 became the first person executed following a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that validated state laws to reform the capital punishment system. Since then, 997 prisoners have been executed, and next week, the 998th, 999th and 1,000th are scheduled to die. Robin Lovitt, 41, will likely be the one to earn that macabre distinction next Wednesday. He was convicted of fatally stabbing a man with scissors during a 1998 pool hall robbery in Virginia. Ahead of Lovitt on death row are Eric Nance, scheduled to be executed Monday in Arkansas, and John Hicks, scheduled to be executed Tuesday in Ohio. Both executions appear likely to proceed. Gilmore was executed before a Utah firing squad, after a record of petty crime, killing of a motel manager and suicide attempts in prison. His life was the basis for a TV miniseries and Norman Mailer's book, "The Executioner's Song." While his case was well-known, most people today probably couldn't name even one of the more than 3,400 prisoners -- including 118 foreign nationals -- on death row in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • THE OVERVIEW; Divisive Case of a Killer of Two Ends As Texas
    EXECUTION IN TEXAS: THE OVERVIEW; Divisive Case of a Killer of Two Ends as... Page 1 of 5 EXECUTION IN TEXAS: THE OVERVIEW EXECUTION IN TEXAS: THE OVERVIEW;Divisive Case of a Killerof Two Ends as TexasExecutes Tucker By Sam Howe Verhovek Feb.4, 1998 See the article in its original context from February 4, 1998, Section A, Page 1 Buy Reprints VIEW ON TIMESMACHl�E TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home deliveryand digital subscribers. Saying "I love all of you very much" and smiling as lethal chemicals were pumped into her body, Karla Faye Tucker was executed tonight in Texas, becoming the first woman put to death by the state since the Civil War. The execution ended a case that attracted an extraordinary amount of attention around the world and led to fierce debate about redemption on death row. The prospect of executing a woman clearly exposed a societal raw nerve, but it also prompted many death-penalty supporters to insist that Ms. Tucker had gained undeserved sympathy because of her sex and her doe-eyed good looks. Ms. Tucker, 38, who murdered two people with a pickax in Houston 15 years ago, came to be known recently, through relentless media coverage of her death row interviews, as a soft-spoken, gentle-looking, born-again Christian pleading for mercy. But her final appeals to the Supreme Court and to Gov. George W. Bush for a reprieve were denied today. She became the second woman executed in the United States since the Supreme Court allowed the death penalty to resume, in 1976.
    [Show full text]