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. Fall 2016 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Fall 2016 (As of October 1, 2016) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,902 Race of Defendant: White 1,226 (42.25%) Black 1,215 (41.87%) Latino/Latina 380 (13.09%) Native American 27 (0.93%) Asian 53 (1.83%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 2,848 (98.14%) Female 54 (1.86%) 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 [see note below], 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: The Delaware statute was found unconstitutional by the state supreme court. Retroactivity of that decision was not determined as of 10/1/16. Those previously sentenced to death remain under sentence of death. New Mexico legislatively repealed the death penalty prospectively.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 Summer 2016 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2016 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fifth Amendment Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, No. 15-537 (Double jeopardy acquittal and inconsistent verdicts) (decision below 790 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2015)) Question Presented: (1) Under Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) and Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009), can a vacated, unconstitutional conviction cancel out the preclusive effect of an acquittal under the collateral estoppel prong of the Double Jeopardy Clause? Sixth Amendment Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, No. 15-606 (Impeaching jury to prove racial discrimination) (decision below 350 P.3d 287 (Colo. 2015)) Question Presented: May a no-impeachment rule constitutionally bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury? Eighth Amendment Moore v. Texas, No. 15-797 (Standard for determination of intellectual disability in death penalty cases) (decision below 470 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 2015)) Question Presented: Does it violate the 8th Amendment and this Court's decisions in Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed? 2. CASES RAISING HABEAS CORPUS QUESTIONS Buck v. Davis, No. 15-8049 (COA standard) (decision below 623 Fed. Appx 668 (5th Cir. 2015)) Question Presented: Did the 5th Circuit impose an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard that contravenes this Court's precedent and deepens two circuit splits when it denied Mr. Buck a COA on his motion to reopen the judgment and obtain merits review of his claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for knowingly presenting an "expert" who testified that Mr. Buck was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he is Black, where future dangerousness was both a prerequisite for a death sentence and the central issue at sentencing Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 3. CASES RAISING OTHER IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTIONS Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544 (Retroactivity of Johnson to collateral cases, (decision below 616 Fed.Appx. 415 (11th Cir. 2015)) Question Presented: (1) Does Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), apply retroactively to collateral cases challenging federal sentences enhanced under the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)? (2) Does Johnson's constitutional holding apply to the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (2), thereby rendering challenges to sentences enhanced under it cognizable on collateral review? (3) Does mere possession of a sawed-off shotgun, an offense listed as a "crime of violence" only in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, remain a "crime of violence" after Johnson? Manrique v. United States, No. 15-7250 (Appeals and deferred restitution) (decision below 618 Fed.Appx. 579 (11th Cir. 2015)) Question Presented: How should the Court resolve the significant division among the circuits concerning the jurisdictional prerequisites for appealing a deferred restitution award made during the pendency of a timely appeal of a criminal judgment imposing sentence, a question left open by the Court's decision in Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 618 (2010)? Manuel v. Joliet, Il, No. 14-9496 (Malicious prosecution claim under § 1983) (decision below 590 Fed. Appx. 641 (7th Cir. 2015)) Question Presented: Does an individual's 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure continue beyond legal process so as to allow a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon the 4th Amendment? Shaw v. United States, No. 15-5991 (Proof of intent under bank fraud statute) (decision below 781 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2015)) Question Presented: For purposes of subsection (1) of the bank fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1344, does a “scheme to defraud a financial institution” require proof of a specific intent not only to deceive, but also to cheat, a bank, or is a scheme directed at a non-bank third-party sufficient? Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 As of October 1, 2016 Total number of executions since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment: 1437 Race of defendants executed Race of victims total number 1437 total number 2106 White 799 (55.60%) White 1593 (75.64%) Black 496 (34.52%) Black 323 (15.34%) Latino/a 119 (8.28%) Latin 145 (6.89%) Native American 16 (1.11%) Native American 5 (0.24%) Asian 7 (0.49%) Asian 40 (1.90%) Gender of defendants executed Gender of victims Female 16 (1.11%) Female 1029 (48.86%) Male 1421 (98.89%) Male 1077 (51.14%) Defendant-victim racial combinations White Victim Black Victim Latino/a Victim Asian Victim Native American Victim White Defendant 740 51.50% 20 1.39% 17 1.18% 6 0.42% 0 0% Black Defendant 282 19.62% 167 11.62% 20 1.39% 15 1.04% 0 0% Latino/a Defendant 51 3.55% 3 0.21% 57 3.97% 2 0.14% 0 0% Asian Defendant 2 0.14% 0 0% 0 0% 5 0.35% 0 0% Native Amer. Def. 14 .97% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0.14% TOTAL: 1089 75.78% 190 13.22% 94 6.54% 28 1.95% 2 0.14% Note: In addition, there were 34 defendants executed for the murders of multiple victims of different races. Of those, 18 defendants were white, 10 black and 6 Latino. (2.37%) Death Row U.S.A. Page 4 Execution Breakdown by State State # % of Racial Combinations (see codes Total below) 1. TX 537 37.37 214 W/W (40%); 105 B/W (20%); 63 B/B (12%); 51 L/L 27* 13# 6^ (9%); 42 L/W (8%); 18 B/L (3%); 12 W/L, 9 B/A ( 2% each); 5 W/mix (.9%); 3 W/B, 3 L/mix (.6% each); 2 L/B, 2 L/A, 2 A/A, 2 N/W, 2 W/A, 2 B/mix (.4% each) 2. OK 112 7.79 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) 3. VA 111 7.72 48 W/W (43%); 35 B/W (32%); 13 B/B (12%); 4 W/B (4%); 3 10* 3# 1^ W/mix, 3 L/W (3% each); 1 B/L, 1 B/A, 1 W/A, 1 A/W, 1 B/mix (.9% each) 4. FL 92 6.40 53 W/W (58%); 18 B/W (20%); 8 B/B (9%); 3 L/W (3%); 2 10* 2^ L/L, 2 W/mix, 2 B/mix, (2% each); 1 N/W, 1 L/B, 1 W/L, 1 L/mix (1% each) 5. MO 87 6.05 51 W/W (59%); 17 B/W, 17 B/B (20% each); 1 N/W, 1 W/B 5* 1# (1% each) 6. GA 66 4.59 43 W/W (65%); 16 B/W (24%); 7 B/B (11%) 2# 1^ 7. AL 57 3.97 31 W/W (54%); 17 B/W (30%); 8 B/B (14%); 1 W/B (2%) 6* 1^ 8. OH 53 3.69 31 W/W (58%); 8 B/W, 8 B/B (15% each); 2 W/mix, 2 B/mix 6* (4%); 1 B/A, 1 W/B (2% each) 9. NC 43 2.99 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 2.99 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fictional Documentaries and Truthful Fictions: the Death Penalty in Recent American Film
    FICTIONAL DOCUMENTARIES AND TRUTHFUL FICTIONS: THE DEATH PENALTY IN RECENT AMERICAN FILM David R. Dow* When it comes to death, most Hollywood movies cheat. They cheat by tinkering with the truth, because the truth as it ac­ tually is is too complex or too disturbing to confront honestly. (The so-called happy ending is the most famous form of such cheating.) They cheat because people generally prefer happi­ ness and simplicity to darkness and complexity, especially where their entertainment is concerned, and filmmakers tend to give people what they want. Even great movies cheat. For example, last year's Oscar winner for best picture, American Beauty, cheats egregiously. The movie (for the one or two of you who have not seen it) deals with modern times: It is about suburbia, men and women who mindlessly pursue meaningless careers, bigotry, and finally, hope and redemption. In the end, the character played by Kevin Spacey is murdered. This is not a surprise ending because the Spacey character narrates the movie in a voice-over, and he tells us as the movie opens that in less than a year he will no longer be alive. We know at the beginning that 110 minutes later Kevin Spacey's character will be dead. Spacey plays a morally ambiguous character. He is in the midst of a full-blown mid-life crisis. He is a lousy husband and a worse father. For virtually the entire length of the film, he lusts after his daughter's high school classmate. In the end, however, he gently rebuffs a neighbor's homosexual advance and-again * George Butler Research Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2017 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Summer 2017 (As of July 1, 2017) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,817 Race of Defendant: White 1,196 (42.46%) Black 1,168 (41.46%) Latino/Latina 373 (13.24%) Native American 26 (0.92%) Asian 53 (1.88%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,764 (98.12%) Female 53 (1.88%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 33 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 20 Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Spring 2017 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2016 or 2017 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194 (Use of websites by sex offender) (decision below 777 S.E.2d 738 (N.C.
    [Show full text]
  • November 29, 2007 Table of Contents for Summary
    TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE Hilton Austin Hotel Austin, Texas November 29, 2007 Table of Contents for Summary A. Recognitions................................................................................................................................................................ Page 1 B. Discussion, Consideration and Possible Action Regarding Consent Items ................................................................. Page 2 C. Election of Board Officers........................................................................................................................................... Page 2 D. Report from the Presiding Officer, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (BPP) – End of the Year............................ Page 2 Statistical Report E. Report from the Chairman, Judicial Advisory Council (JAC)..................................................................................... Page 3 1. Introduction of Newly Appointed JAC Members 2. Progress on Establishing Emergency Procedures for Local Departments 3. Upcoming Sentencing Conference 4. Report on Possible Implementation of Diversion Treatment Alternative Prison (DTAP) Program Initiated by Local Prosecutors F. Report from the Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) – Update on Treatment Expansion ............................................................................................................................................. Page 3 G. Report from the Chairman of the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee (CMHCC) – Overview
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES of AMERICA the Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The execution of mentally ill offenders I cannot believe that capital punishment is a solution – to abolish murder by murdering, an endless chain of murdering. When I heard that my daughter’s murderer was not to be executed, my first reaction was immense relief from an additional torment: the usual catastrophe, breeding more catastrophe, was to be stopped – it might be possible to turn the bad into good. I felt with this man, the victim of a terrible sickness, of a demon over which he had no control, might even help to establish the reasons that caused his insanity and to find a cure for it... Mother of 19-year-old murder victim, California, November 1960(1) Today, at 6pm, the State of Florida is scheduled to kill my brother, Thomas Provenzano, despite clear evidence that he is mentally ill.... I have to wonder: Where is the justice in killing a sick human being? Sister of death row inmate, June 2000(2) I’ve got one thing to say, get your Warden off this gurney and shut up. I am from the island of Barbados. I am the Warden of this unit. People are seeing you do this. Final statement of Monty Delk, mentally ill man executed in Texas on 28 February 2002 Overview: A gap in the ‘evolving standards of decency’ The underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency. Indiana Supreme Court Justice, September 2002(3) On 30 May 2002, a jury in Maryland sentenced Francis Zito to death.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Liberty and the Common Good - the Balance: Prayer, Capital Punishment, Abortion
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 20 Number 3 Volume 20, Summer 1974, Number 3 Article 5 Individual Liberty and the Common Good - The Balance: Prayer, Capital Punishment, Abortion Brendan F. Brown Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons This Pax Romana Congress Papers is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE COMMON GOOD-THE BALANCE: PRAYER, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, ABORTION BRENDAN F. BROWN* In striking the balance between individual freedom and the common good of society, judges are relying "on ideology or policy preference more than on legislative intent."' Professor Jude P. Dougherty, President-elect of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, has declared that "this is particulary apparent in actions of the United States Supreme Court where the envisaged effects of a decision are often given more weight than the intentions of the framers of the Constitution or of the legislators who passed the law under consideration."' The dominant trend of the United States judiciary is to begin its reasoning with "liberty" or "free- dom" as the ultimate moral value in the Franco-American sense of maxi- mum individual self-assertion, and then to maximize it. It will be the purpose of this paper to show that "liberty" or "freedom" is only an instrumental moral value, and that by treating it otherwise, the courts are damaging the common good of society.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment Matthew E
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 37 Article 6 Issue 1 Fall 2007 2007 Comments: The rC ime, the Case, the Killer Cocktail: Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment Matthew E. Feinberg University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Feinberg, Matthew E. (2007) "Comments: The rC ime, the Case, the Killer Cocktail: Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 37: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol37/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CRIME, THE CASE, THE KILLER COCKTAIL: WHY MARYLAND'S CAPITAL PUNISHMENT PROCEDURE CONSTITUTES CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT I. INTRODUCTION "[D]eath is different ...." I It is this principle that establishes the death penalty as one of the most controversial topics in legal history, even when implemented only for the most heinous criminal acts. 2 In fact, "[n]o aspect of modern penal law is subjected to more efforts to influence public attitudes or to more intense litigation than the death penalty.,,3 Over its long history, capital punishment has changed in many ways as a result of this litigation and continues to spark controversy at the very mention of its existence.
    [Show full text]
  • What About Parole on a Life Sentence on a Capital Murder Charge
    WHAT ABOUT THE PAROLE PROCESS WHEN ONE HAS A LIFE SENTENCE ON A CAPITAL MURDER CHARGE WHAT ABOUT THE PAROLE PROCESS WHEN ONE HAS A LIFE SENTENCE ON A CAPITAL MURDER CHARGE? Download this Article (Adobe Acrobat) Prepared by Bill Habern and David O’Neil Habern, O’Neil & Buckley L.L.P. Huntsville Area Office Box 8930 Huntsville, Texas 77340 (888) 942-2376 Fax (936) 435-1089 Web site paroletexas.com Houston Office 4300 Scotland Houston, Texas 77007 (713) 865-5670 Fax (713) 865-5655 copyright 2001 Habern, O’Neil & Buckley L.L.P. What About Parole on a Life Sentence on a Capital Murder Case [1] Fall, 2001 By David O’Neil and Bill Habern (Habern, O’Neil & Buckley L.L.P.) INTRODUCTION In any capital murder case where a jury must decide the fate of the defendant before it, the most nagging question some jurors face is not whether the defendant should be executed for his crime, but whether and when he will again be released to society, if he is not sentenced to death. This has been implicitly recognized by District Attorneys around the state in their strenuous and consistent opposition to proposals that Texas adopt “life without parole” as a sentencing option in capital cases. Fearing that jurors would be less inclined to impose the death penalty if they knew a defendant would never be released to society, many District Attorneys have waged an aggressive and successful battle against life without parole legislation. Their efforts were largely responsible for the recent defeat of that legislation when it was again considered last session.
    [Show full text]
  • The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan David T
    MIGRATION,PALGRAVE ADVANCES IN CRIMINOLOGY DIASPORASAND CRIMINAL AND JUSTICE CITIZENSHIP IN ASIA The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan David T. Johnson Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia Series Editors Bill Hebenton Criminology & Criminal Justice University of Manchester Manchester, UK Susyan Jou School of Criminology National Taipei University Taipei, Taiwan Lennon Y.C. Chang School of Social Sciences Monash University Melbourne, Australia This bold and innovative series provides a much needed intellectual space for global scholars to showcase criminological scholarship in and on Asia. Refecting upon the broad variety of methodological traditions in Asia, the series aims to create a greater multi-directional, cross-national under- standing between Eastern and Western scholars and enhance the feld of comparative criminology. The series welcomes contributions across all aspects of criminology and criminal justice as well as interdisciplinary studies in sociology, law, crime science and psychology, which cover the wider Asia region including China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Macao, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14719 David T. Johnson The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan David T. Johnson University of Hawaii at Mānoa Honolulu, HI, USA Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia ISBN 978-3-030-32085-0 ISBN 978-3-030-32086-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32086-7 This title was frst published in Japanese by Iwanami Shinsho, 2019 as “アメリカ人のみた日本 の死刑”. [Amerikajin no Mita Nihon no Shikei] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • About the Us Death Penalty
    About The Us Death Penalty Gyratory Scarface debilitated no lubricants disobliged ardently after Terrance peptizes daftly, quite pyaemic. chemotropicGranted Konstantin Kermie repulsing,sulphuret histhat meats carder. worries swabs indoors. Er still magnetizing melodiously while Sixteen states from participation in the execution team members are about death penalty as a routine medical licensing is The public is concerned about illegal immigrants from Mexico and associates them with crime. By doing so, we continue to uplift their humanity throughout the process. Finally, I discuss the limitations of the current work and suggest hypotheses for further research. Please visit our ability to death penalty across the about us has been weighed the execution method of the relatively meaningless if either potassium as you? In the following decades, implementation of the death penalty dropped significantly. In the past decade, the work of various innocence projects has had tremendous impact on attitudes about capital punishment in the US and elsewhere. Set body class for different user state. Remove all ads and leave only your desired content. Setting user entitlement class. Mexico has criticised the case raising of death penalty alone on. These appeals are essential because some inmates have come within hours of execution before evidence was uncovered proving their innocence. Unless it can be demonstrated that the death penalty, and the death penalty alone, does in fact deter crimes of murder, we are obligated to refrain from imposing it when other alternatives exist. Create an account to get election deadline reminders and more. The central question now is whether he has the political will and moral strength to exercise it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Execution of Gary Gilmore
    The execution of Gary Gilmore. As of December 31st, 1976 there had been no executions in the USA for nine and a half years, after the Supreme Court suspended the death penalty in 1968. The previous execution was that of 48 year old Luis Jose Monge who was put to death in Colorado’s gas chamber on June 2nd, 1967. In the landmark case of Furman v Georgia in 1972 the Supreme Court invalidated all states’ death penalty statutes on the grounds of arbitrariness and they had to rewrite their statutes as a result. The new guidelines allowed for the introduction of aggravating and mitigating factors at the sentencing phase of trials. The new statutes were approved in 1976 in the case of Gregg v. Georgia, clearing the way for a resumption of executions. The first post Furman execution was carried out the following year in the glare of worldwide media interest. On Monday January 17th, 1977, 36 year old Gary Mark Gilmore (opposite) was put to death by firing squad in Utah. Gilmore’s execution was voluntary and he put up a strenuous campaign to be allowed to die. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), among other groups, put up an equally strenuous fight to prevent the execution, seeing it as “opening the floodgates” for future ones. Utah Governor Scott Matheson wanted to grant a stay but found that he didn’t have the power to. The ACLU managed to persuade U S District Court Judge Willis Ritter to grant a stay just 7 hours before the scheduled execution.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 17-___ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— WILLIAM HAROLD KELLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— LAURENCE H. TRIBE SYLVIA H. WALBOLT Of Counsel Counsel of Record CARL M. LOEB UNIVERSITY CHRIS S. COUTROULIS PROFESSOR AND PROFESSOR E. KELLY BITTICK, JR. OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW JOSEPH H. LANG, JR. HARVARD LAW SCHOOL* CARLTON FIELDS Hauser 420 JORDEN BURT, P.A. 1575 Massachusetts Avenue Corporate Center Three at Cambridge, MA 02138 International Plaza (617) 495-1767 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd. Tampa, FL 33607 * University affiliation (813) 223-7000 noted for identification [email protected] purposes only Counsel for Petitioner May 25, 2018 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 CAPITAL CASE QUESTION PRESENTED In Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (“Hurst I”), this Court held that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment because a jury did not make the findings necessary for a death sentence. In Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (“Hurst II”), the Florida Supreme Court further held that under the Eighth Amendment the jury’s findings must be unanimous. Although the Florida Supreme Court held that the Hurst decisions applied retroactively, it created over sharp dissents a novel and unprecedented rule of partial retroactivity, limiting their application only to inmates whose death sentences became final after Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). Ring, however, addressed Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme and was grounded solely on the Sixth Amendment, not the Eighth Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri's Death Penalty in 2017: the Year in Review
    Missourians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty 6320 Brookside Plaza, Suite 185; Kansas City, MO 64113 816-931-4177 www.madpmo.org Missouri’s Death Penalty in 2017: The Year in Review A year-end compilation of death penalty data for the state of Missouri. Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 2 II. Missouri Death Sentences in 2017 3 New Death Sentences 3 Unconstitutionality of Judicial Override 3 Non-Death Outcomes: Jury Rejections 4 Non-Death Outcomes: Pleas for Life Without Parole 5 III. Missouri Executions 7 Executions in Missouri and Nationally 7 Missouri’s Executed in 2017 - Mark Christeson 8 Missouri Executions by County - a Death Belt 9 Regional Similarity of Executions and Past Lynching Behaviors 10 Stays of Execution and Dates Withdrawn 12 IV. Current Death Row 13 Current Death Row by County and Demographics 13 On Death Row But Unfit for Execution 15 Granted Stay of Execution 15 Removed from Death Row - Not By Execution 16 V. Missouri’s Death Penalty in 2018 17 Pending Missouri Executions and Malpractice Concerns 17 Recent Botched Executions in Other States 17 Pending Capital Cases 18 VI. Table 1 - Missouri’s Current Death Row, 2017 19 VII. Table 2 - Missouri’s Executed 21 VIII. MADP Representatives 25 1 I. Executive Summary Missourians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (MADP) - a statewide organization based in Kansas City, Missouri - publishes this annual report to inform fellow citizens and elected officials about developments and related issues associated with the state’s death penalty in 2017 and recent years. This report includes information about the following death penalty developments in the state of Missouri: ● Nationally, executions and death sentences remained near historically low levels in 2017, the second fewest since 1991.
    [Show full text]