DOCSLIB.ORG

85-5319 - WILLIE JASPER DARDEN, Petitioner V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
85-5319 - WILLIE JASPER DARDEN, Petitioner V OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DKT/CASE NO. «-53» H TITf F WILLIE JASPER DARDEN, Petitioner, V. LOU ! If L.L. WAIN WRIGHT, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMEN'H CORRECTIONS PLACE Washington > D . C. DAT1- January’ 13, 1986 PAG£S 1 45 ALEtRSON REPORTING (202) 628-9300 20 F STREET, N.W. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 ----------------- - -x 3 WILLIE JASPER DARDEN, ; 4 5 V. .* No. 85-5 319 6 LOUIE L. WAIHWR IGHT , i 7 SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT . 5 8 OF CORRECTIONS ; 9 ------------------ -x 10 Washington, D.C. 11 Monday, January 13, 1985 12 The above-entitled tatter game on for oral 13 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 14 11i03 o’clock a.m. 15 APPEARANCES* 16 ROBERT A. HARPER, JR., ESQ., Tallahassee, Florida; on 17 behalf of the petitioner. 18 RICHARD W. PROSPECT, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General 19 of Florida, Daytona Beach, Florida; on behalf of 20 the respondent. 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY iNC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300 1 CONTENTS 2 OPAL AFCOiSJLSl-Gfi. PAGE 3 ROBERT A. HARFER, JR., ESO. , 4 on behalf of the petitioner 3 5 RICHARD W PROSPECT, ES3. , 6 on behalf of the respondent 16 7 ROBERT A. HARPER, JR., ESQ. , 8 on behalf of the petitioner r eb uttal 39 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300 1 PROCSFDIIGS 2 CHIFF JUSTICE BCR GEEt He will hear arguments 3 next in Darden against Sain wriqht. 4 Mr. Harper, I think you may proceed whenever 5 you are ready. 6 ORAL ARGUMENT OF'ROBERT A. HARPER, JR., ESQ., 7 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 8 MR. HARPER* Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice, and 9 may it please the Court, the prosecutor's closing 10 argument in the Millie Jasper Darden prosecution during 11 the final summary has been variously described as bad, as 12 unfair, as harmful, as prejudicial, as egregious, but 13 there is one word only that is sufficient to describe 14 this argument in this case, and that is reversal. 15 ^he question then arises as to why the case 16 hasn't been reversal and why is it here. And the simple 17 answer is, the Eleventh Circuit has not and did not apply 18 the appropriate standard announced in Caldwell versus 19 Mississippi. 20 On the same date that the Darden case came down 21 en banc from the Eleventh Circuit, July the 23rd, 198B, 22 that court decided Tucker versus Kemp, Brooks v. Kemp, 23 and William Tucker versus Kemp. The Tucker case has been 24 vacated and remanded under the Caldwell decision. We 25 raised Caldwell in the petition for rehearing which was ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300 1 denied — that opinion is found in the joint appendix at 2 395 — when less tni a majority of the court voted in 3 favor of the petition for rehearing. 4 The Eleventh Circuit is squarely faced and 5 apparently rejected the Caldwell standard, and we would 6 submit that in view of the dissents, two dissents in the 7 en banc opinion on the 27tn of August, that a remand 8 would be inaccurate, and that an outright reversal is 9 required . 10 This argument is so bad it has been universally 11 condemned. It is so bad, as the District Judge noted, 12 even the state has not even weakly asserted anything but 13 that, it is improper. 14 The reviewing courts, each and every one, 15 starting with the Supreme Court of Florida, found that 16 the prosecutor's remarks under ordinary circumstances 17 would constitute a violation of the code of professional 18 responsibility. 19 Two astices of the Florida Supreme Court, 20 former Chief Justices each, described the remarks, as 21 vituperative personal remarks upon the accused and 22 appeals to passions and prejudice. 23 The magistrate who heard the evidence at the 24 evidentiary hearing below was "convinced that the jury 25 deliberation was substantially influenced by the u ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300 1 pre jud Iciai argument.” 2 The Tlev?nth — Excuse me. The United States 3 District Judge who had a de novo hearing on the issue 4 said no one even weakly suggested that the prosecutors* 5 closing remarks were anything but improper. The Eleventh 6 Circuit said that anyone attempting a textbook 7 illustration of a violation of the code of professional 8 responsibility could not possibly improve upon the 9 example provided by the prosecution during Darden’s 10 trial. 11 vie submit that this case would be universally 12 applauded by the organized bar, and no concept should be 13 indulged to deflect from the fact that the sentencer in 14 this capital case was diverted from his truthfinding 15 functi on. 16 The purpose of the Code of Professional 17 Responsibility is universally accepted by every 18 practicing attorney and judge. The purpose of the rules 19 is to protect the due process rights to a fair trial. 20 These standards are objective, and we submit that these 21 standards are the litmus against which this prosecutor’s 22 argument should be tested, and wa submit that this test 23 in the search for the ever elusive concept called justice 24 would require that this trial, these proceedings be 25 reversed . e; ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300 1 Against this test every reviewing court, all 2 the parties in the litigation concede that the argument 3 is improper. The only problem is, the standard 4 appropriate in this instance has not been applied. 5 The argument itself comprises 44 pages in which 6 27 improper arguments are interjected. There are ten 7 attacks on the credibility of the criminal justice system 8 itself, attacks on the Department of Corrections, attacks 9 on the parole people for turning this man loose, and the 10 like, nine instances of personal opinion, two instances 11 of bolstering the argument, two outricht misstatements, 12 one interjection of race, and one attack on specific — 13 well, actually two attacks on specific rights. 14 In the order that they occur, the arguments 15 start off wit t entreaties to the effect, "It could have 16 been you, members of the jury, who had been murdered," 17 arguments that I am convinced -- 18 QUESTION* What is wrong with that sort of an 19 argument, counsel? I mean, the prosecutor has got to say 20 something. 21 NR. HARPFF* Well, Your Honor, I think he does 22 have to say something, but I think it has to be proper. 23 QUESTION* Is there some constitutional 24 standard of propriety that you see in our cases? 25 NR. HARPER* Yes, sir, particularly in a death 6 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300 1 case. I think that, theca -- the — when you inf lame the 2 passions of the jury and divert them from the is sue at 3 hand, be it guilt or be it punishment, and inter ject 4 things like -- 5 QUESTION* You say, then, that the Fou rteen th 6 Amendment of the United States Constitution proh ifcits a 7 prosecutor in a death case from saying to the ju ry, 8 members of the jury, it might have been you who was 9 killed? 10 MR. HARPER* Sell, that is just one of th e 11 first instances. 12 QUESTION* Hut I take it, though, that is what 13 you are saying. 14 MR. HARPER* That is one thing he said . Yes, 15 lour Honor. And I — 16 QUESTION* And you say it is unconstit utional 17 for him to say that. 18 MR. HARPER* Rhat I am saying more par ticularly 19 is unconstitutional is, there should be another defendant 20 in this courtroom, but alas, T know of no charge s to 21 bring against -- 22 QUESTION* Well, but you started out ticking 23 off your claims as to how this prosecutor h ad falien 24 short, and I thought the first one you ga ve was, he said 25 to the members of the jury, this might have been you . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9300 1 New, surely you meint tbit to nave a constitutional 2 dimension, didn't you? 3 HR. HARPER; Well, Tour Honor, that golden rule 4 argument, I was saying -- «hat. I have said was, there 5 were 27 instances of misconduct. 6 QUESTION * Well, how — you — 7 HR. HARPER* And not all of them maybe rise to 8 the constitutional level. T have some that I believe do 9 as opposed to that.one, and others that I think are 10 stronger. "The other defendant should be the Division of 11 Corrections," T think, is stronger. 12 "I wish the persons responsible tor him being 13 on the public were in the doorway and shot instead of the 14 victim, Hr. Turman." T think arguments like. He, Darden, 15 is a prisori'T. "Mr. Turman — that unknown defendant, 16 namely, the Department of Corrections, is criminally 17 negligent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Read Our Full Report, Death in Florida, Now
    USA DEATH IN FLORIDA GOVERNOR REMOVES PROSECUTOR FOR NOT SEEKING DEATH SENTENCES; FIRST EXECUTION IN 18 MONTHS LOOMS Amnesty International Publications First published on 21 August 2017 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2017 Index: AMR 51/6736/2017 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 3 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations Table of Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 ‘Bold, positive change’ not allowed ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reason #1 to Support a National Moratorium on Executions
    Reason #1 to Support a National Moratorium on Executions The National Death Penalty System is Seriously Flawed Resulting in Wrongful Convictions and Death Sentences • More than two out of every three capital judgments reviewed by the courts during a 23-year period were seriously flawed. Experts reviewed all the capital cases and appeals imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 at the state and federal levels. They found a national error rate of 68%. In other words, over two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences are reversed because of serious error during trial or sentencing. This does not include errors that were not serious enough to warrant a reversal. • The federal government would not tolerate an error rate of 68% for any other government function - such as product safety or processing social security claims. Yet it allows this margin of error in the system that can take a person’s life. Only a moratorium puts an immediate halt to the risk of an innocent person being executed. • The error rate for capital cases is much higher than for other types of cases. At the direct appeal stage, serious or reversible error is detected in about 12 to 20% of the non-capital criminal cases that are appealed. • High error rates exist throughout the country and are not limited to certain states. Over 90% of states that have the death penalty have error rates of 52% or higher. 85% have error rates of 60% or higher. Three- fifths have error rates of 70% or higher. This is not an isolated problem but is universal in all death penalty states.
    [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]
  • Read the Case Summaries
    Reasonable Doubts: Is the U.S. Executing Innocent People? October 26, 2000 A Preliminary Report of the GRASSROOTS INVESTIGATION PROJECT Quixote Center Pursuing justice, peace, and equality P.O Box 5206, Hyattsville, MD 20722 301-699-0042 / [fax] 301-864-2182 / www.quixote.org / [email protected] Table of Contents I. Acknowledgements II. Introduction III. Methodology IV. Findings V. Conclusion VI. Recommendations VII. The Case Summaries Alabama Brian K. Baldwin Cornelius Singleton Freddie Lee Wright California Thomas M. Thompson Florida James Adams Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. Jesse J. Tafero Illinois Girvies Davis Missouri Larry Griffin Roy Michael Roberts Texas Odell Barnes, Jr. Robert Nelson Drew Gary Graham (aka Shaka Sankofa) Richard Wayne Jones Frank Basil McFarland 1 Virginia Roger Keith Coleman VIII. Appendices – Case Charts Brian K. Baldwin Cornelius Singleton Freddie Lee Wright Thomas M. Thompson James Adams Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. Jesse J. Tafero Girvies Davis Larry Griffin Roy Michael Roberts Odell Barnes, Jr. Robert Nelson Drew Gary Graham (aka Shaka Sankofa) Richard Wayne Jones Frank Basil McFarland Roger Keith Coleman 2 Acknowledgements Equal Justice USA would like to express its utmost gratitude to Claudia Whitman, who had the idea, the passion, and the brilliance to see this project from inception to conclusion. We thank Lisa Kois, Esq. for her assistance in drafting the report, and David Hammond, Esq. who assisted with research. We also thank the many people throughout the country who have given their time and talents to the project, including: Rob Owen, Rob Warden, Micki Dickoff, Rita Barker, Bill Lofquist, Bruce Livingston, Kent Gipson, Margaret Vandiver, Mike Radelet, Esther Brown, Judy Cumbee, Jill Keefe, Laird Carlson, Barbara Taylor, Matt Holder, Dawn Dye, Bob and Marie Long, Grace Bolden, and Wendy Fancher.
    [Show full text]
  • FLORIDA DEATH CASES WHERE NON-STATUTORY MITIGATORS WERE FOUND a Chronological List, by Date of Sentence
    FLORIDA DEATH CASES WHERE NON-STATUTORY MITIGATORS WERE FOUND A Chronological List, by Date of Sentence This update: 8/6/15; 265 pages Compiled by: Theresa E. Farley, Research Assistant to: Dr. Michael Radelet, Professor Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Campus Box 483, IBS Boulder, Colorado 80309 303-735-5811 (office) * * * * * * * Defendant's name: WILLIE DARDEN Sentenced to death on 01/19/74 in Citrus County Trial Counsel: RAYMOND TODD GOODWILL (public defender) Trial judge JOHN DEWELL found 2 non-statutory mitigators: Good prison record from previous incarcerations Unwavering declaration of innocence * * * * * * * Defendant's name: THOMAS HALLIWELL Sentenced to death on 05/03/74 Hillsborough County Trial Counsel: JAMES S. PARHAM (privately retained) FSC on direct appeal found mitigating factors that trial judge HERBOTH S. RYDER failed to find including 2 non-statutory: Highly decorated Green Beret in Vietnam war Under emotional strain over the mistreatment of Sandra Tresch and was greatly influenced by her * * * * * * * Defendant's name : FRANZ PETER BUCKREM Sentenced to death on 05/15/75 in Sarasota County Trial Counsel: GALE K. GREENE (privately retained) 1 FSC on direct appeal found mitigating factors that trial judge ROY E. DEAN failed to find including 3 non-statutory: Drinking the night the homicide was committed Previous altercation with victim and was obviously disturbed Was gainfully employed * * * * * * * Defendant's name: GLEN MARTIN Sentenced to death on 10/10/75 in Volusia County Trial Counsel: LOUIS OSSINSKY (privately retained) Trial judge URIEL BLOUNT found 1 non-statutory mitigator: Suffers from sickle cell anemia * * * * * * * Defendant's name : RODNEY MALLOY Sentenced to death on 05/01/76 in Polk County Trial Counsel: DENNIS MALONEY (public defender) FSC on direct appeal found a basis for jury recommendation of life that Trial Judge ROY E.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Florida No. Sc
    Electronically Filed 06/26/2013 02:24:18 PM ET RECEIVED, 6/26/2013 14:28:31, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA NO. SC-_____ DANE P. ABDOOL, CLEMENTE JAVIER AGUIRRE-JARQUIN, LLOYD CHASE ALLEN, ANDREW R. ALLRED, JOSHUA L. ALTERSBERGER, CHARLES ANDERSON, FRED ANDERSON, JR., RICHARD ANDERSON, GUILLERMO O. ARBELAEZ, LANCELOT ARMSTRONG, JEFFREY LEE ATWATER, CORNELIUS BAKER, JAMES BARNES, ARTHUR BARNHILL, KAYLE BATES, BRETT A. BOGLE, LUCIOUS BOYD, HARREL F. BRADDY, CHARLES G. BRANT, PAUL BROWN, DANIEL BURNS, HARRY LEE BUTLER, JOHN M. BUZIA, MILFORD WADE BYRD, LUIS CABALLERO, LORAN COLE, DANIEL CONAHAN, JERRY CORRELL, ALLEN COX, WILLIE CRAIN, JAMES DAILEY, DOLAN DARLING, EDDIE WAYNE DAVIS, LABRANT D. DENNIS, WILLIAM DEPARVINE, KENNETH DESSAURE, JOEL DIAZ, JAMES AREN DUCKETT, DONALD W. DUFOUR, DWIGHT T. EAGLIN, TERRY M. ELLERBEE JR., RICHARD ENGLAND, PAUL EVANS, STEVEN EVANS, WYDELL EVANS, ANTHONY J. FARINA, MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, FRANKLIN D. FLOYD, MAURICE FLOYD, KEVIN FOSTER, KONSTANTIN FOTOPOULOS, DAVID FRANCES, CARLTON FRANCIS, GUY GAMBLE, LOUIS GASKIN, MICHAEL ALLEN GRIFFIN, MICHAEL J. GRIFFIN, THOMAS GUDINAS, JERRY LEON HALIBURTON, DONTE HALL, ENOCH HALL, FREDDIE HALL, JOHN HAMPTON, PATRICK HANNON, WILLIAM HAPP, JOHN HARDWICK, STEVEN DOUGLAS HAYWARD, PEDRO HERNANDEZ-ALBERTO, JUSTIN HEYNE, PAUL CHRISTOPHER HILDWIN, JAMES HITCHCOCK, JOHNNY HOSKINS, GERHARD HOJAN, JOHN HUGGINS, JEROME HUNTER, CONNIE ISRAEL, ETHERIA V. JACKSON, RAY JACKSON, SONNY JEFFRIES, BRANDY JENNINGS, EMANUEL JOHNSON, RICHARD A. JOHNSON, RAY JOHNSTON, CLARENCE J. JONES, RANDAL JONES, VICTOR TONY JONES, BILLY KEARSE, DEAN KILGORE, DARIUS KIMBROUGH, MICHAEL KING, RICHARD KNIGHT, RONALD KNIGHT, GENGHIS KOCAKER, WILLIAM M. KOPSHO, ANTON KRAWCZUK, CARY MICHAEL LAMBRIX, IAN DECO LIGHTBOURNE, HAROLD LUCAS, RICHARD E.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Barkholz\Local Settings
    2:05-cv-70723-JCO-MKM Doc # 43 Filed 09/28/07 Pg 1 of 30 Pg ID 2712 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DARION Y. TURNER, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 05-CV-70723-DT HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA KENNETH ROMANOWSKI, Respondent. _________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION, FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND FOR BAIL, AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS OF HIS CLAIMS This matter is pending before the Court on petitioner Darion Y. Turner’s application for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Also pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for: (1) reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and funds to retain investigative services; (2) an evidentiary hearing; (3) a special hearing on the merits; and (4) release on bail. The Court has determined that substantive review of Petitioner’s claims is the most efficient approach to this case. However, the Court finds no merit in Petitioner’s claims and no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing, to reconsider prior orders in this case, or to release Petitioner on bail. Consequently, the habeas petition and pending motions for reconsideration, for an evidentiary hearing, and for bail are denied. Petitioner’s Motion for a Special Hearing is granted to the extent that the Court will review the merits of Petitioner’s claims. A procedural history and discussion follow. 2:05-cv-70723-JCO-MKM Doc # 43 Filed 09/28/07 Pg 2 of 30 Pg ID 2713 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row, USA: Spring 2019
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 2019 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Spring 2019 (As of April 1, 2019) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2673 (2,673 - 230* - 923M = 1520 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,122 (41.98%) Black 1,114 (41.68%) Latino/Latina 359 (13.43%) Native American 28 (1.05%) Asian 49 (1.83%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,619 (97.98%) Female 54 (2.02%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 32 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, ColoradoM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, 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: 21 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, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] * Designates the number of people 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death Penalty Moratorium Movement
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research CUNY School of Law 2002 Another Place Beyond Here: The Death Penalty Moratorium Movement Jeffrey Kirchmeier CUNY School of Law How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cl_pubs/254 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW Volume 73, Number 1 2002 ANOTHER PLACE BEYOND HERE: THE DEATH PENALTY MORATORIUM MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES* JEFFREY L. KIRCHMEIER* Those of us who go to the seashore have all seen the tide coming in. One wave goes so far and the other waves to the same distance. And then for some reason some overcharged wave goes further than the other waves have gone. The other waves follow and that is how the tide comes in. That is how reforms come .... I believe that the wave is coming in further than the waves have come before. - Sir Beverley Baxter, in a speech before the British Par- liament' INTRODUCTION In 1996, in his book about the anti-death penalty move- ment in the United States, Professor Herbert Haines wrote The Article title, "Another Place Beyond Here," comes from Over Yonder (Jonathan'sSong), a song by Steve Earle that is about a death row inmate await- ing execution: "I'm going over yonder/ Where no ghost can follow me/ There's an- other place beyond here/ Where I'll be free I believe." STEVE EARLE, Over Yonder (Jonathan'sSong), on TRANSCENDENTAL BLUES (E Squared Records 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Blackmun's Capital Punishment Jurisprudence Malcolm L
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 26 Article 11 Number 1 Fall 1998 1-1-1998 Justice Blackmun's Capital Punishment Jurisprudence Malcolm L. Stewart Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Malcolm L. Stewart, Justice Blackmun's Capital Punishment Jurisprudence, 26 Hastings Const. L.Q. 271 (1998). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol26/iss1/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Justice Blackmun's Capital Punishment Jurisprudence by MALCOLM L. STEWART* Introduction In Callins v. Collins, issued during the final Term of Justice Black- mun's tenure on the Supreme Court, the Justice filed a dissenting opinion stating that he felt "morally... obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed."1 The Callins dissent made clear that the Justice would thenceforth vote to vacate the sen- tence of death in any capital case coming before the Court. In that respect, the position taken by Justice Blackmun during his final Term resembled those of Justices Brennan and Marshall from 1976 until their retirements from the bench. Unlike Justices Brennan and Marshall, however, Justice Black- mun did not assert that the punishment of death is per se cruel or excessive. That is, he did not deny that the death penalty is an appro- priate punishment for some criminals.
    [Show full text]
  • National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty; Records Apap298
    National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty; Records apap298 This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on April 20, 2021. M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections & Archives National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty; Records apap298 Table of Contents Summary Information .................................................................................................................................... 3 Administrative History ................................................................................................................................... 3 Scope and Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Arrangement of the Collection ...................................................................................................................... 5 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................ 6 Controlled Access Headings .......................................................................................................................... 7 Collection Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Case Files ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Adults .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Workers Vanguard
    25¢ No. 449 25 March 1988 "Rambo" Reagan Sends.Inthe·82nd Airborne Smash Yankee Imperialism in Central Americal The 3,200 u.s. troops Ronald Rea­ gan dispatched to Honduras March 16 were a big step up the escalation ladder Defend Nicaragua-Complete, Extend the Revolution! in Central America. Inventing the pre­ text of a supposed "invasion" by Sandi­ nista Nicaragua, this war move was a convenient means to distract attention from the indictments offour ofthe Iran/ Contragate conspirators announced that same day and to stampede Con­ gress into voting for aid to Reagan's contra terrorists. The administration's all-purpose ploy also helps undercut the Democrats' Arias "peace" plan, and per­ haps a whiff of gunpowder would rally voters to the Republicans. But mean­ while, there are four battalions of the United States Army's Rapid Reaction Force (two each from the 7th Light Infantry Division and the 82nd Air­ borne) poised along the Nicaraguan border. They won't intimidate the San­ dinistas, but they're available for what­ ever provocation the lame ducks in the White House dream up: a border skir­ mish, "restoring order" in Panama, you name it. In the streets of America, Reagan's dispatch of U.S. troops to Honduras was met with an outburst of demon­ strations (see article below). The pro­ tests were only a taste of what would happen in this country if large-scale U.S. military intervention were attempt­ AP/Wide orld ed. And they intersect divisions in the Nicaraguan women, arms in hand, march on International Women's Day to honor Sandinlsta hero Nora Astorga ruling class over Nicaragua.
    [Show full text]