DOCSLIB.ORG

The State of Utah V. Joseph Mitchell Parsons : Brief of Appellant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The State of Utah V. Joseph Mitchell Parsons : Brief of Appellant Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Supreme Court Briefs 1988 The tS ate of Utah v. Joseph Mitchell Parsons : Brief of Appellant Utah Supreme Court Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. David L. Wilkinson; Attorney General; Attorney for Respondent. James L. Shumate; Attorney for Appellant. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, Utah v. Parsons, No. 880102.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 1988). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1/1999 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme Court Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH THE STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff-Respondent, Case No. 880102 vs. JOSEPH MITCHELL PARSONS, Classification Priority No. 1 Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF OF APPELLANT Appeal from a conviction of a capital felony of Criminal Homicide, Murder in the First Degree, and a sentence of death by lethal injection in the Fifth Judicial District Court, in and for Iron County, State of Utah, the Honorable J. Philip Eves, District Judge, presiding. UTAH SUFREKH COURT UTAH DOCUMEN JAMES L. SHUMATE USB# 2952 KFU Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 45.9 110 North Main, Suite H P.O. Box 623 DOCKET NO. .H£If2 Cedar City, Utah 84720 Telephone: (801) 586-3772 DAVID L. WILKINSON Utah Attorney General Attorney for Plaintiff-Respondent 236 State Capitol Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Telephone: (801) 533-7627 11 tW.< !'T»-.'. ;««V SL? 11353 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH THE STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff-Respondent, Case No. 880102 vs. JOSEPH MITCHELL PARSONS, Classification Priority No. 1 Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF OF APPELLANT Appeal from a conviction of a capital felony of Criminal Homicide, Murder in the First Degree, and a sentence of death by lethal injection in the Fifth Judicial District Court, in and for Iron County, State of Utah, the Honorable J. Philip Eves, District Judge, presiding. JAMES L. SHUMATE USB# 2952 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 110 North Main, Suite H P.O. Box 623 Cedar City, Utah 84720 Telephone: (801) 586-3772 DAVID L. WILKINSON Utah Attorney General Attorney for Plaintiff-Respondent 236 State Capitol Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Telephone: (801) 533-7627 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT . 1 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS IN LOWER COURT 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, AND RULES 2 STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE . 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS . 4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS . 7 ARGUMENT . 8 POINT I: THE STATUTE OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN CONVICTED, AFTER HIS GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL . POINT II: THE JURY, BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS, WAS IMPROPERLY MISLEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT COULD FIND ONLY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN DETERMINING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY 12 POINT III: THE DEFENDANT WAS IMPROPERLY DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THE COURT THAT HE WAS BEING CHARGED WITH A FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASE IN AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS MANNER . ' 14 POINT IV: THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY INTERVENED IN THE PROCEEDING BY ASSISTING THE STATE WHEN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MADE A MOTION FOR MISTRIAL 15 POINT V: THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ALLOWED THE STATE TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER INFLAMMATORY CRIME OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER CHARGED . 18 POINT VI: THE JURY WAS IMPROPERLY INFLUENCED BY THE APPEARANCE OF THE HONORABLE J. HARLAN BURNS, FORMER JUDGE OF i THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT AND FATHER TO THE IRON COUNTY ATTORNEY, WHEN JUDGE BURNS APPEARED IN OPEN COURT DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL AND WAS SEEN TO CONSULT WITH AND ADVISE THE STATE'S PROSECUTOR IN THIS ACTION 19 POINT VII: THE PROSECUTOR IMPROPERLY IMPLIED PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS IN ISSUE BY PLACING UNDUE EMPHASIS ON HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE 20 POINT VIII: THE DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH BY A JURY, ONE OF WHOSE MEMBERS HAD SPOKEN WITH ONE OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES IN THE FOYER OF THE COURTROOM DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL 21 POINT IX: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY, AS DEFENDANT REQUESTED, ON THE TWO REASONABLE HYPOTHESES THEORY , 23 CONCLUSION 23 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Government of the Virgin Islands v. Toto, 529 F.2d 278 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 12 Pullv v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984) 15 State v. Bailey, 712 P.2d 281 (Utah, 1986) 9 State v. Bock, 328 P.2d 1065 (Idaho) 13 State v. Laffertv, 749 P.2d 1239 (Utah, 1988) 18, 19, 21, 22 State v. Larrocco, 664 P.2d 1272 (Utah, 1982) 23 State v. Saunders, 699 P.2d 738 (Utah, 1985) 11 State v. Wood. 648 P.2d 71 (Utah, 1981) 13 United States v. Cook. 538 F.2d 1000 (3rd Cir. 1976) . 12 United States v. Daniels, 770 F.2d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 1976) 12 United States v. Foskev. 636 F.2d 517 (D.C. Cir. 1980) . 12 CONSTITUTIONS UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Fifth Amendment 2,9 Fourteenth Amendment 2 UTAH CONSTITUTION Article I, Sec. 7 2, 18 Article I, Sec. 12 2, 9, 10, 18 Article I, Sec. 13 3, 18 iii STATUTES UTAH CODE ANN. Sec. 76-5-202 (1) (h) 3,4, 9, 10, 11 UTAH CODE ANN. Sec. 76-3-207 1, 13, 23 OTHER AUTHORITIES UTAH RULES OF EVIDENCE Rule 403 3, 11 Rule 404 (b) 3, 11 UTAH RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 3.4 (e) 3, 21 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Sec. 3-5.8 21 (2d Ed. 1980) 76 AM. JUR. 2d Trial, Sec. 1178 13 iv THE STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff-Respondent, Case No. 880102 vs. JOSEPH MITCHELL PARSONS, Classification Priority No. 1 Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF OF APPELLANT JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT The Utah Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the appeal in this matter for the reason that it is an appeal from a conviction of a capital felony and sentence of death, to be appealed to the Utah Supreme Court under the provisions of 78-2-2 (3) (h) and 77-35-26 (8), Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS IN LOWER COURT The Defendant, Joseph Mitchell Parsons, plead guilty in the District Court to the capital felony, Criminal Homicide, Murder in the First Degree, on September 18, 1987 (R. 79-86). A sentencing trial was held before a 12 member jury in Iron County from January 25, 1988, through January 29, 1988. The sentencing procedure was conducted under the provisions of 77-3-207, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for death after deliberating approximately 3 1/2 hours (T. 1258). The court granted the Defendant additional time to present argument in support of a hearing on the applicability of the death penalty in the case (T. 1269). On February 17, 1988, the court imposed the sentence of death by lethal intravenous inj ection. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, AND RULES FIFTH AMENDMENT, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES• No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United State, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State, shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 7, CONSTITUTION OF UTAH. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 12, CONSTITUTION OF UTAH. In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a copy thereof, to testify in his own behalf, to be confronted by the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his own behalf, to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the County or District in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, and the right to appeal in all cases. In no instance shall any accused person, before final judgment, be compelled to advance money or fees to secure the rights herein guaranteed. The accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself; a wife shall not be compelled to testify against her husband, nor a husband 2 against his wife, nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 50 Issue 3 Article 3 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 ou?y 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 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]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2005 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services, Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2005 (As of January 1, 2005) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,455 Race of Defendant: White 1,576 (45.62%) Black 1,444 (41.79%) Latino/Latina 356 (10.30%) Native American 39 ( 1.13%) Asian 40 ( 1.16%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,401 (98.44%) Female 54 ( 1.56%) Juveniles: Male 79 ( 2.29%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 40 (Underlined jurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 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: 13 Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Fall 2004 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2004 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Devenpeck v. Alford, No. 03-710 (Probable cause to arrest and qualified immunity) (decision below Alford v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death Penalty in the United States, a Polymorphous Torture
    999 THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES, A POLYMORPHOus TORTURE Ensemble contre 999 la peine de mort THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES, ECPM 3, rue Paul Vaillant Couturier A POLYMORPHOUS TORTURE 92320 Chatillon - France ARNAUD GAILLARD Tel.: +33 (0)1 57 63 03 57 Fax: +33 (0)1 57 63 89 25 www.abolition.fr This mission report was elaborated with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents are the sole responsibility of the author and cannot in any case be con- sidered to reflect the position of the European Union. Analysis & Redaction: Arnaud Gaillard, sociologist specialized in criminal justice issues. Translation: Sandrine Ageorges-Skinner Ensemble Photography: © Arnaud Gaillard contre la peine © ECPM, 2011 de mort ISBN : 978-2-9525533-5-1 Acknowledgements This study was conducted with the assistance of Florent Vassault and Emile Carreau, whom I wish to thank warm-heartedly. They were daily collaborators to complete this fact-finding mission, sharing the many issues that did not fail to arouse during the encounter, sometimes aggressive and violent, with the reality of the death penalty in the United-States. Prior to this mission and throughout the data analysis and drafting, I would like to thank Sandrine Ageorges-Skinner, tireless activist and wife of Hank Skinner sentenced to death, whose insight steadily enriched this analysis. Thank you to Claude Guillaumaud-Pujol, activist, researcher and author specialized in American civilization. Beyond their skills as translators, they accompanied and guided my questions about the death penalty in the United States. Finally thank you to the association Together against the Death Penalty (ECPM) and its team, employees and volunteers, for trusting me and especially for the power of their faith in a universal abolition to come, which must now be achieved.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • OCTOBER TERM 1994 Reference Index Contents
    jnl94$ind1Ð04-04-96 12:34:32 JNLINDPGT MILES OCTOBER TERM 1994 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics ....................................................................................... II General .......................................................................................... III Appeals ......................................................................................... III Arguments ................................................................................... III Attorneys ...................................................................................... III Briefs ............................................................................................. IV Certiorari ..................................................................................... IV Costs .............................................................................................. V Judgments and Opinions ........................................................... V Original Cases ............................................................................. V Records ......................................................................................... VI Rehearings ................................................................................... VI Rules ............................................................................................. VI Stays .............................................................................................. VI Conclusion ...................................................................................
    [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]
  • Death Row USA, Winter 2000
    DE.AIii ROW U.SA Winter2000 A quarterllJ report hlJ. the Capital Punishment Project 0£ the NAACPLegal De£ense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services,Criminal Justice Project · NAACP Legal Defense & EducationalFund . \_., TOTAL NUMBER OF'DEATHROWINMATES KNOWN TO LDF: . 3,652 Race of Defendant: White 1,701 (46.71%) Black 1,562 (42.77%) ' Latino/Latina 312 ( 8.54%) Native American 45 ( 1.23%) Asian 31 ( .85%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,600 (98.58%) Female 52 ( 1.42%) Juveniles: Male 69 ( 1. 89°/o) DISPOSmONS SINCE JANUARY 1, 1973: Executions: 59'8 Suicides: . 54 Commutations: 90 (including those by the Governor ofTexas resulting from favorable court decisions) Died of natural causes or killed while under death sentence: 157 Convi~ions/Sentences reversed: 1697 JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES : 40 (Underlinedjurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,California, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware , Florida, Georgia, Idaho , Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New Yorlc,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 : 13 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vennont,West Virginia,Wisconsin . Death Row U.S.A. Page I In the United States Supreme Court October Term - 1999 SignificantCriminal , Habeas, & Other Pending Cases · 1. CASESRAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Bond v. United States, No. 98-9349 (Manipulationofluggage stored in overhead bin of bus) (decision below at 167 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 2012 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 2012 (As of April 1, 2012) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,170 Race of Defendant: White 1,371 (43.25%) Black 1,325 (41.80%) Latino/Latina 393 (12.40%) Native American 36 (1.14%) Asian 44 (1.39%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,109 (98.08%) Female 61 (1.92%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 37 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 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: 16 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [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 2012 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2011 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Reichle v. Howards, No. 11-262 (1st Amendment retaliatory arrest claim) (decision below 634 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir.
    [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]
  • State of Utah V. John R. Pinder : Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 2003 State of Utah v. John R. Pinder : Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Laura Dupaix; Assistant Attorney General; Attorney for Appellee. Brent A Gold; Andrew Parnes; Attorneys for Appellant. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, Utah v. Pinder, No. 20030484 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2003). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2/4381 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff- Appellee, Case No. 20030484-SC v. JOHN&PINDER, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF OF APPELLANT Appeal from Conviction and Sentence and Denial of Motion for New Trial Entered by the Honorable Lynn W. Davis In the Fourth Judicial District Wasatch County, State of Utah BRENT A. GOLD (#1213) 2064 Prospector Avenue, Suite 203 P.O. Box 1994 Park City, Utah 84060 Telephone: (435) 649-8406 Facsimile: (435) 649-8412 ANDREW PARNES Pro Hac Vice P.O.
    [Show full text]