DOCSLIB.ORG

Strickland V. United States - Altlaw

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strickland V. United States - Altlaw Strickland v. United States - AltLaw http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/408964 (/) Simple Search (/v1/search) Advanced Search (/v1/search/advanced) Boolean Search (/v1/search/boolean) Enter a case name, citation, or key words and phrases: About AltLaw (/v1/about) Case Coverage (/v1/about/coverage) Browse All Cases (/v1/cases) Browse U.S. Code (/v1/codes/us) May 14, 1984 United States Supreme Court Strickland v. United States Cite as: hide (#) (AltLaw cannot guarantee this citation is correct — double check!) 466 U.S. 668 Show full citation (#) This case cites: 1984 United States v. Cronic (/v1/cases/400627) Autry v. McKaskle (/v1/cases/403865) Javor v. United States (/v1/cases/444524) Pulley v. Harris (/v1/cases/393366) 1983 United States v. Trapnell (/v1/cases/550424) Stephens v. Kemp (/v1/cases/386717) Sullivan v. Wainwright (/v1/cases/399155) Burger v. Zant (/v1/cases/423401) Autry v. Estelle (/v1/cases/381166) Barclay v. Florida (/v1/cases/398003) Barefoot v. Estelle (/v1/cases/398270) Zant v. Stephens (/v1/cases/383096) 1 of 169 8/29/2008 8:34 AM Strickland v. United States - AltLaw http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/408964 1982 Standard v. Swint (/v1/cases/407607) Frady v. United States (/v1/cases/381118) Engle v. Isaac (/v1/cases/391293) Rose v. Lundy (/v1/cases/396134) In Eddings v. Oklahoma (/v1/cases/382622) 1981 Bullington v. Missouri (/v1/cases/387991) U.S. v. Morrison (/v1/cases/391141) 1980 United States v. Beck (/v1/cases/384124) In Cuyler v. Sullivan (/v1/cases/387242) 1979 Green v. Georgia (/v1/cases/382645) Rummel v. Estelle (/v1/cases/524461) 1978 Cooper v. Fitzharris (/v1/cases/457267) Lockett v. Ohio (/v1/cases/407569) Holloway v. Arkansas (/v1/cases/392983) Sixth Amendment. United States v. Yelardy (/v1/cases/502004) 1977 United States v. Ellison (/v1/cases/478312) In Gardner v. Florida (/v1/cases/386256) 1976 United States v. DeCoster (/v1/cases/418035) Woodson v. North Carolina (/v1/cases/389838) Gregg v. Georgia (/v1/cases/390010) Jurek v. Texas (/v1/cases/381881) Estelle v. Gamble (/v1/cases/393702) Geders v. United States (/v1/cases/382495) 1975 In Herring v. New York (/v1/cases/380670) 1974 Beasley v. United States (/v1/cases/500521) 1973 United States v. DeCosta (/v1/cases/416085) 1972 Furman v. Georgia, 1972, (/v1/cases/386947) Argersinger v. Hamlin, 1972, (/v1/cases/407041) Brooks v. Tennessee (/v1/cases/399299) 1971 McGautha v. California (/v1/cases/403701) 1970 Moore v. U.S. (/v1/cases/880462) McMann v. Richardson (/v1/cases/403571) 1968 In Coles v. Peyton (/v1/cases/857731) 2 of 169 8/29/2008 8:34 AM Strickland v. United States - AltLaw http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/408964 1967 Chapman v. United States (/v1/cases/394827) 1963 Gideon v. Wainright (/v1/cases/390354) Townsend v. Sain (/v1/cases/397621) 1961 Ferguson v. Georgia (/v1/cases/381889) 1955 Michel v. State of Louisiana, 1955, (/v1/cases/392335) 1946 U. S. v. Johnson (/v1/cases/388575) 1942 Adams v. U.S. ex rel. McCann (/v1/cases/381672) Glasser v. United States (/v1/cases/403886) 1938 Johnson v. Zerbst (/v1/cases/398046) 1932 Powell v. Alabama (/v1/cases/401474) 1904 Fayerweather v. Ritch (/v1/cases/390082) (Only cases currently available in AltLaw are listed.) Syllabus Respondent pleaded guilty in a Florida trial court to an indictment that included three capital murder charges. In the plea colloquy, respondent told the trial judge that, although he had committed a string of burglaries, he had no significant prior criminal record and that at the time of his criminal spree he was under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family. The trial judge told respondent that he had "a great deal of respect for people who are willing to step forward and admit their responsibility." In preparing for the sentencing hearing, defense counsel spoke with respondent about his background, but did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric examination. Counsel's decision not to present evidence concerning respondent's character and emotional state reflected his judgment that it was advisable to rely on the plea colloquy for evidence as to such matters, thus preventing the State from cross-examining respondent and from presenting psychiatric evidence of its own. Counsel did not request a presentence report because it would have included respondent's criminal history and thereby would have undermined the claim of no significant prior criminal record. Finding numerous aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the trial judge sentenced respondent to death on each of the murder counts. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, and respondent then sought collateral relief in state court on the ground, inter alia, that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding in several respects, including his failure to request a psychiatric report, to investigate and present character witnesses, and to seek a presentence report. The trial court denied relief, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. Respondent then filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court advancing numerous grounds for relief, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied relief, concluding that although counsel made errors in judgment in failing to investigate mitigating evidence further than he did, no prejudice to respondent's sentence resulted from any such error in judgment. The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed, stating that the Sixth Amendment accorded criminal defendants a right to counsel rendering "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." After outlining standards for judging whether a defense counsel fulfilled the duty to investigate nonstatutory mitigating circumstances and whether counsel's errors were sufficiently prejudicial to justify reversal, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for application of the standards. 3 of 169 8/29/2008 8:34 AM Strickland v. United States - AltLaw http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/408964 Held: 1. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. The same principle applies to a capital sentencing proceeding—such as the one provided by Florida law—that is sufficiently like a trial in its adversarial format and in the existence of standards for decision that counsel's role in the proceeding is comparable to counsel's role at trial. Pp. 2063-2064. 2. A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or setting aside of a death sentence requires that the defendant show, first, that counsel's performance was deficient and, second, that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Pp. 2064-2069. (a) The proper standard for judging attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance, considering all the circumstances. When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel's assistance, the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential, and a fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. These standards require no special amplification in order to define counsel's duty to investigate, the duty at issue in this case. Pp. 2064-2067. (b) With regard to the required showing of prejudice, the proper standard requires the defendant to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. A court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury. Pp. 2067-2069. 3. A number of practical considerations are important for the application of the standards set forth above. The standards do not establish mechanical rules; the ultimate focus of inquiry must be on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result is being challenged. A court need not first determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, that course should be followed. The principles governing ineffectiveness claims apply in federal collateral proceedings as they do on direct appeal or in motions for a new trial. And in a federal habeas challenge to a state criminal judgment, a state court conclusion that counsel rendered effective assistance is not a finding of fact binding on the federal court to the extent stated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), but is a mixed question of law and fact. Pp. 2069-2070. 4. The facts of this case make it clear that counsel's conduct at and before respondent's sentencing proceeding cannot be found unreasonable under the above standards. They also make it clear that, even assuming counsel's conduct was unreasonable, respondent suffered insufficient prejudice to warrant setting aside his death sentence. Pp. 2070-2071. 693 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir.1982), reversed. Carolyn M. Snurkowski and Calvin L. Fox, Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioners. Richard E. Shapiro, Trenton, N.J., for respondent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crime & Justice
    CRIME & JUSTICE Abolishing the Death Penalty This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of IPS and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. 4 IMPRINT © Inter Press Service (IPS) International Association Publisher: IPS-Inter Press Service Europa gGmbH European Regional Office Marienstr. 19/20 D-10117 Berlin Coordinator: Ramesh Jaura Editor: Petar Hadji-Ristic Layout: Birgit Weisenburger, Berlin Photos: Diverse sources duly acknowledged inside Printed in Germany, November 2007 5 CONTENTS PREFACE 6 MARIO LUBETKIN, IPS DIRECTOR-GENERAL HELP STOP CYCLE OF REVENGE 7 ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA 9 AFRICA 35 MIDEAST & MEDITERRANEAN 61 ASIA - PACIFIC 93 LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN 147 U.N. & USA 169 6 Mario Lubetkin Preface Rome - It was a historic year. In 2007 the tide of opinion against The reports are immensely varied. They range from NGO websites and copied into diverse human rights blogs. the death penalty gathered in strength as never before, sweeping dispatches from Central Asia to one on the bunged lethal The reports represent a part of IPS coverage on the death to every corner of the world. The number of abolitionist coun- injection execution in Florida that dragged out for minutes - penalty. News stories for the general IPS service have not tries rose. The number of executions declined. Long in place 34 excruciatingly painful ones - not seconds. As a follow-up been included. moratoriums held and new ones came into force. And as the year to this, an IPS correspondent reports on the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes the Writing Is on the Wall: How the Briseno Factors Create an Unacceptable Risk of Executing Persons with Intellectual Disability*
    CROWELL.TOPRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 2/29/2016 3:07 PM Notes The Writing Is on the Wall: How the Briseno Factors Create an Unacceptable Risk of Executing Persons * with Intellectual Disability I. Introduction In 2002, the Supreme Court held in Atkins v. Virginia1 that the execution of intellectually disabled people is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.2 When Atkins was decided, Texas did not have a statute governing how intellectual disability claims should proceed in the capital context, so Texas’s highest criminal court, the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), created the legal framework to govern these claims.3 Notably, the CCA did more than create procedural rules to govern Atkins claims; citing concerns about whether Texans believe that all intellectually disabled capital offenders should be exempted from the death penalty, the CCA created a distinctive and restrictive approach to determining intellectual disability. Recently though, in Hall v. Florida,4 the Supreme Court held a Florida practice unconstitutional because it was restrictive and diverged from professional norms.5 This Note serves as a comprehensive evaluation of Texas’s approach in theory and practice, highlighting its departure from Atkins and Hall and the important policy objectives that guided those decisions. * I would like to thank Professor Jordan Steiker—my guide through law school—for all of the support and advice these last few years, not to mention the idea for, and countless edits of, this Note. I would also like to thank my mothers for perpetually encouraging me to fight for justice, all the while making sure my grammar was on point.
    [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]
  • Economic and Social Council
    UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Distr. GENERAL Council E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1 17 March 2005 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH/FRENCH/SPANISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session Agenda item 11 CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE QUESTION OF DISAPPEARANCES AND SUMMARY EXECUTIONS Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Report of the Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston Addendum Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received* ________________ * The present document is being circulated as received in view of the fact that it greatly exceeds the page limitations currently imposed by the relevant General Assembly resolutions. GE.05-13117 E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1 Page 2 CONTENTS Paragraphs Page Table of communications ............................................................. 4 - 21 Afghanistan................................................................................... 1-8 22 - 23 Algeria .......................................................................................... 9-14 23 - 25 Angola........................................................................................... 15-16 25 Argentina ...................................................................................... 17-22 25 - 26 Azerbaijan..................................................................................... 23-25 26 Bangladesh.................................................................................... 26-31 26 - 28 Barbados ....................................................................................... 32-34
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 2015 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. Spring 2015 (As of April 1, 2015) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,002 Race of Defendant: White 1,284 (42.77%) Black 1,251 (41.67%) Latino/Latina 386 (12.86%) Native American 31 (1.03%) Asian 49 (1.63%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 2,948 (98.20%) Female 54 (1.80%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 34 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, 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: 19 Alaska, Connecticut [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: Connecticut and New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced in each state remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Winter 2015 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases Decided or to Be Decided in October Term 2014 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Elonis v.
    [Show full text]
  • Texa-S Lawreiew
    Texa-s LawReiew Article REDUNDANCY: WHEN LAw REPEATS ITSELF John M. Golden Book Review THE COUNCIL AND THE COUR'- LAw AND POLITICS IN THE RISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT David Kaye & Kal Raustiala Notes THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL: HOW THE BRmENo FACTORS CREATE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK OF EXECUTING PERSONS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY Hensleigh Crowell PROTECTING NORTH AMERICA'S. PAST: THE CURRENT (AND INEFECTIVE) LAWS PREVENTING THE ILLICIT TRADE OF MEXICAN PRE-COLUMBIAN ANTIQUITIES AND IoW WE CAN IMPROVE THEM Ryan D. Phelps MARCH 2016 VOL. 94 No. 4 PAGES 629 To 806 Texas Law Review A nationaljournal published seven times a year Recent and Forthcoming Articles of Interest Visit www.texaslrev.com for more on recent articles IF YOU CAN'T BEAT 'EM, JOIN 'EM? How SITTING BY DESIGNATION AFFECTS JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR Mark A. Lemley & Shawn P. Miller February2016 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OR PRESUMPTION OF MERCY?: WEIGHING Two WESTERN MODES OF JUSTICE James Q. Whitman April 2016 Individual issue rate: $15.00 per copy Subscriptions: $47.00 (seven issues) Order from: School of Law Publications University of Texas at Austin 727 East Dean Keeton Street Austin, Texas USA 78705 (512) 232-1149 http://www.utexas.edu/law/publications Texas Law Review See Also Responses to articles and notes found in this and other issues are available at www.texaslrev.com/seealso BLACKHORSE DOWN: Do NFL TEAMS NEED TRADEMARK PROTECTION? William . Mason Receive notifications of all See Also content-sign up at www.texasIrev.coni TEXAS LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION OFFICERS KARL G DIAL MARK L.D. WAWRO KEYAVASH HEMYARI President President-Elect Executive Director JAMES A.
    [Show full text]
  • WAKE FOREST JOURNAL of LAW & POLICY [Vol
    PERLIN_TOPUBLISH (1).DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/15/2021 7:22 PM “MAN IS OPPOSED TO FAIR PLAY”: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF HOW THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS FAILED TO TAKE SERIOUSLY ATKINS V. VIRGINIA MICHAEL L. PERLIN, ESQ.,† TALIA ROITBERG HARMON, PHD.,†† SARAH WETZEL, B.S; B.A.††† I. INTRODUCTION n 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia,1 the United States Supreme Court I held that subjecting persons with intellectual disabilities to the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment.2 Since 2002, the Court has returned to this question multiple times, clarifying that The authors wish to thank Richard Burr, Robert Owen, Jessica Graf, Jeremy Schepers, Scott Smith, David Dow, Cathy Smith, Paula Caplan, and John “Bud” Ritenour for their invaluable and helpful information. A portion of this article was presented via Zoom semi- nar by Michael L. Perlin to the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, May 1, 2020. † Professor Emeritus of Law; Founding Director, International Mental Disability Law Reform Project; Co-founder, Mental Disability Law and Policy Associates; New York Law School, 185 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013; Adjunct Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law; Instructor, Loyola University New Orleans, Department of Crim- inology and Justice; [email protected]; [email protected] †† Niagara University, Chair and Professor, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology; Timon Hall Room 12, Niagara University, NY 14091; (716) 286-8093 (o), (716) 286-8079 (fax); [email protected] ††† Niagara University, Niagara University, NY, 14109, [email protected] 1. 536 U.S. 304, 305 (2002). 2. At the time of the Atkins case, the phrase “mental retardation” was used.
    [Show full text]
  • May 2004 VOICE for the DEFENSE 1 17Th Annual Rusty Duncan Criminal Law Short Course Registration Form
    May 2004 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE 1 17th Annual Rusty Duncan Criminal Law Short Course Registration Form San Antonio, Texas ● June 17-19, 2004 ● 16.25 CLE hours / 3 Ethics Mail registration to 1707 Nueces Street, Austin, Texas 78701 or fax to 512.469.0512 Questions? Call 512.478.2514 or visit www.tcdla.com. Attendee Name ______________________________________________________________________ Bar Number_____________________ Street Address __________________________________________________________________City ________________________________ State ____________________ Zip____________________ County______________________ E-mail _______________________________ Phone ________________________________________________________ Fax________________________________________________ Registration Fees (includes one ticket to Membership Party) By May 24 After May 24 TCDLA New/Current Members and Judges ❑ registration (includes CD) $350 $400 ❑ registration with book (includes CD) $400 $450 Non-Member Registration Fees ❑ registration (includes CD) $500 $550 ❑ registration with book (includes CD) $550 $600 Can’t attend? Buy the materials (shipping and sales tax included in total) ❑ printed book/member......................................$107 ❑ printed book/non-member......................................$157 NOTE: Supplies are limited. Seminar books and CD’s must be ordered by May 31, 2004. Walk-in’s receive CD only. TCDLA Membership Fees (renew your membership or join as a new member) ❑ new member (*see below).............................................$75
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2018 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. Summer 2018 (As of July 1, 2018) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,738 Race of Defendant: White 1,153 (42.03%) Black 1,135 (41.38%) Latino/Latina 368 (13.42%) Native American 28 (1.02%) Asian 53 (1.93%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,683 (97.99%) Female 55 (2.01%) 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 2018 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2017 or 2018 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Byrd v. United States, No. 16-1371 (Driver’s expectation of privacy when not on rental lease of car) (decision below 679 Fed.Appx.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row USA Winter 2016
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 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. Winter 2016 (As of January 1, 2016) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,943 Race of Defendant: White 1,251 (42.51%) Black 1,227 (41.69%) Latino/Latina 383 (13.01%) Native American 30 (1.02%) Asian 51 (1.73%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 2,888 (98.13%) Female 55 (1.87%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 34 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, 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: 19 Alaska, Connecticut, 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 Summer 2015 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2015 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Bernard v. Minnesota, No. 14-1470 (Criminalization of refusal to take blood alcohol test) (decision below 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 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. Spring 2016 (As of April 1, 2016) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,918 Race of Defendant: White 1,236 (42.36%) Black 1,217 (41.71%) Latino/Latina 383 (13.13%) Native American 29 (0.99%) Asian 52 (1.78%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 2,863 (98.12%) Female 55 (1.88%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 34 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, 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: 19 Alaska, Connecticut, 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 Winter 2016 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2015 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Bernard v. Minnesota, No. 14-1470 (Criminalization of refusal to take blood alcohol test) (decision below 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 2011 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. Spring 2011 (As of April 1, 2011) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,222 Race of Defendant: White 1,405 (43.61%) Black 1,345 (41.74%) Latino/Latina 393 (12.20%) Native American 36 (1.12%) Asian 42 (1.30%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,161 (98.12%) Female 61 (1.89%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 38 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, [Illinois] [see note, below], Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico [see note, below], North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 15 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: In March 2011, a bill abolishing the death penalty passed in Illinois, effective July 1, 2011. Gov. Quinn commuted the death sentences of all Illinois prisoners.] [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The two men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Winter 2011 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2010 1.
    [Show full text]