DOCSLIB.ORG

Irreversible Error

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Copyright © 2014 by The Constitution Project. All rights reserved. No part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of The Constitution Project. For other information about this report, or any other work of The Constitution Project, please visit our website at www.constitutionproject.org or email us at [email protected]. Cover art designed by Elias Moose THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT STAFF Larry Akey Scott Roehm Director of Communications Senior Counsel, Rule of Law Program Maria Cortina Hispanic Outreach Fellow Virginia E. Sloan President Jennifer Donley Development Coordinator Katherine Stern Senior Counsel, Christopher Durocher Rule of Law Program Government Affairs Counsel Sarah E. Turberville Louis Fisher Senior Counsel, Scholar in Residence Criminal Justice Program Kayla Haran Stephen I. Vladeck Program Assistant Supreme Court Fellow Sarah McLean Brian Yourish Communications Coordinator Office Manager I. Scott Messinger Chief Operating Officer The Constitution Project promotes constitutional rights and values by forging a non-ideological consensus aimed at sound legal interpretations and policy solutions. The Constitution Project | iii Irreversible Error iv | The Constitution Project TABLE OF CONTENTS The Death Penalty Committee .......................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. xiii Preface ................................................................................................................. xv Snapshot of Legal and Policy Landscape ........................................................... xxi Advocacy Efforts of The Constitution Project in Furtherance of the Death Penalty Committee’s Recommendations ........................................................... xxxi Black Letter Recommendations .......................................................................... xliii Chapter 1: Safeguarding Innocence and Preventing Wrongful Execution ....... 1 Chapter 2: Forensic Evidence and Labs ............................................................. 11 Chapter 3: Access to Justice ................................................................................ 23 Chapter 4: Custodial Interrogations ................................................................... 35 Chapter 5: Ensuring Reliable Eyewitness Testimony ........................................ 51 Chapter 6: Reserving Capital Punishment for the Most Heinous Offenses and Most Culpable Offenders .......................................................................... 71 Chapter 7: Ensuring Effective Counsel .............................................................. 85 Chapter 8: Duty of Judge and Jury .................................................................... 97 Chapter 9: Role of Prosecutors .......................................................................... 113 Chapter 10: Safeguarding Racial Fairness and Proportionality ........................ 125 Chapter 11: Executive Clemency ....................................................................... 131 Chapter 12: Execution Procedures ..................................................................... 137 Appendix I: State-by-State Execution Procedures ............................................. 145 Appendix II: Death Penalty Statistics ................................................................ 157 The Constitution Project | v Irreversible Error vi | The Constitution Project THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT’S DEATH PENALTY COMMITTEE Co-Chairs Gerald Kogan Chief Justice, Florida Supreme Court, 1987-1998; Chief Prosecutor, Homicide and Capital Crimes Division, Dade County, Florida, 1960-1967 Mark White Governor, Texas, 1983-1987; Attorney General, Texas, 1979-1983; Secretary of State, Texas, 1973-1977; Assistant Attorney General, Texas, 1965-1969 Beth A. Wilkinson Special Attorney to the U.S. Attorney General, Oklahoma City bombing case, 1995-2001; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of New York, 1991-1995 Members David I. Bruck Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse, Washington and Lee University School of Law; Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel William G. Broaddus Attorney General, Virginia, 1985-1986 W.J. Michael Cody Attorney General, Tennessee, 1998-2001 Mark Earley, Jr. Attorney General, Virginia, 1998-2001; Senator, Virginia State Senate 1988-1998 O.H. Eaton, Jr. Judge, Florida 18th Judicial Circuit, 1986-2010 John J. Gibbons Director and Founder, John J. Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest and Constitutional Law; Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1987-1990 Charles A. Gruber Chief of Police, South Barrington Police Department, 1999-2008; President, International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1990; President, Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, 1982 The Constitution Project | vii Irreversible Error Dr. David P. Gushee Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and Director, Center for Theology and Public Life, Mercer University Sam D. Millsap, Jr. District Attorney, Bexar County, Texas, 1983-1987 Sheila M. Murphy President, Board of Directors, Illinois Death Penalty Education Project; Presiding Judge, Il- linois Sixth District, 1992-1999 Chase Riveland Secretary, Department of Corrections, Washington, 1986-1997; Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, 1983-1986; Deputy Director, Wisconsin Division of Corrections, 1980-1982; Superintendent, Portage Correctional Institution, Wisconsin, 1980-1982 David A. Schwartz President & CEO, DS Baseball LLC William S. Sessions Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1987-1993; Judge, United States District Court, Western District of Texas, 1974-1987; Chief Judge, 1980-1987; United States Attorney, West- ern District of Texas, 1971-1974 B. Frank Stokes, Jr. Private Investigator; Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1971-2001 Jennifer Thompson-Cannino Author, activist; Member, North Carolina Innocence Commission; Member, Advisory Com- mittee for Active Voices Scott Turow Author; Member, Illinois’ Executive Ethics Commission; Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, 1979-1986; Chair, Illinois State Appellate Defender’s Commission, 2002- 2004 John W. Whitehead President, The Rutherford Institute Dr. Reginald Wilkinson Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC), 1991-2006; DRC em- ployee, 1973; President, American Correctional Association; Vice Chair for North America, International Corrections and Prison Association; President, Ohio Correctional and Court Services Association; Founder, Ohio chapter, National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice viii | The Constitution Project Death Penalty Committee Rev. Dr. Aidsand F. Wright-Riggins III Executive Director, American Baptist Home Mission Societies, American Baptist Churches, USA Past Members Many distinguished individuals who have participated in The Constitution Project’s Death Penalty Committee over the years have resigned from the Committee for a variety of reasons, including running for elective office, retirement, and other obligations. They have helped shape this and past reports and we are grateful for their contributions. Rev. James E. Andrews* Stated Clerk, General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA), 1973-1996 Charles F. Baird Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 1991-1999; Judge, Criminal District Court, Travis County, Texas, 2007-2011 Harry Barnes, Jr.* United States Ambassador, Romania, 1974-1977; India, 1981-1985; and Chile, 1985-1988 Bob Barr Member, United States House of Representatives (R-GA), 1995-2003 Charles B. Blackmar* Chief Justice, Missouri Supreme Court, 1989-1991 Robert J. Burns Judge, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, 1979-1997 Rosalynn Carter Vice Chair, The Carter Center; First Lady of the United States, 1977-1981 Mario M. Cuomo Governor, New York, 1983-1994 James A. Fry Assistant District Attorney, Dallas County, Texas, 1980-1982; Chairman, Texas State Bar Grievance Committee Thomas A. Gottschalk Executive Vice President and General Counsel, General Motors Corporation, 1994-2006 The Constitution Project | ix Irreversible Error Asa Hutchinson Undersecretary, Department of Homeland Security, 2003-2005; Administrator, Drug En- forcement Administration, 2001-2003; Member, United States House of Representatives (R- AR), 1997-2001; United States Attorney, Western District of Arkansas, 1982-1985 Peter D. Keisler Acting Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, 2003-2007; Prin- cipal Deputy Associate Attorney General, 2002-2003; Acting Associate Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice, 2007 Cardinal William H. Keeler Archbishop of Baltimore, 1989-2007 Paula M. Kurland Victim Advocate; founding Member, Bridges to Life (a victim-offender program in Texas) Ann Landers* Syndicated Columnist, 1955-2002 David Lawrence, Jr. Executive Editor, Detroit Free Press, 1978-1989; Publisher, Miami Herald, 1989-1999 Timothy Lynch Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute Abner J. Mikva Schwartz Lecturer and Senior Director, Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, University of Chicago Law School; Member, United States House of Representatives (D-IL), 1969-1973 and 1975-1979; White House Counsel, 1994-1995; Judge, D.C. Circuit United States Court of Appeals, 1979-1994; Chief Judge,
Recommended publications
  • Arbitrariness in States' Capital Punishment Laws

    Arbitrariness in States' Capital Punishment Laws

    The Unconstitutionality of Different Standards of Death: Arbitrariness in States’ Capital Punishment Laws Elizabeth Cantrell Department of Political Science University of Vermont Spring 2013 Cantrell 2 Author’s Note I wish to express my sincere thanks to all those who made it possible for this thesis to come to fruition. I would like to thank my committee members, Professor Alec Ewald and Professor Felicia Kornbluh, for graciously devoting their time and thoughts to this project. I also extend my gratitude to Professor Alex Zakaras, who has been an outstanding mentor over the years. In addition, I owe many thanks to my thesis advisor, Professor Lisa Holmes, whose time, expertise, and good humor were essential to the completion of this thesis. Cantrell 3 Table of Contents Introduction 5 A. Statement of the problem: arbitrariness in the death penalty B. Thesis goals and structure C. The question of federalism D. “Death is different” E. Background information a. Death penalty facts b. Brief literature review on arbitrariness research Section I Chapter I: Furman v. Georgia and the Beginnings of Arbitrariness 25 A. Overview B. Facts of the case C. Court decision and opinions D. Doctrinal significance Chapter II: Gregg v. Georgia and the Model Death Penalty Code 33 A. Overview B. Facts of the case C. Court decision and opinions D. Doctrinal significance Chapter III: Supreme Court Jurisprudence on State Statutes 38 A. Upholding statutes a. Proffitt v. Florida b. Zant v. Stephens c. Lowenfield v. Phelps d. Walton v. Arizona e. Arave, Warden v. Creech f. Harris v. Alabama B. Invalidating statutes a.
  • The Breadth of Congress' Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme

    The Breadth of Congress' Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme

    H H H H H H H H H H H 5. The Breadth of Congress’s Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme of Separated Powers Overview Congress’s broad investigatory powers are constrained both by the structural limitations imposed by our constitutional system of separated and balanced powers and by the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Thus, the president, subordinate officials, and individuals called as witnesses can assert various privileges, which enable them to resist or limit the scope of congressional inquiries. These privileges, however, are also limited. The Supreme Court has recognized the president’s constitutionally based privilege to protect the confidentiality of documents or other information that reflects presidential decision-making and deliberations. This presidential executive privilege, however, is qualified. Congress and other appropriate investigative entities may overcome the privilege by a sufficient showing of need and the inability to obtain the information elsewhere. Moreover, neither the Constitution nor the courts have provided a special exemption protecting the confidentiality of national security or foreign affairs information. But self-imposed congressional constraints on information access in these sensitive areas have raised serious institutional and practical concerns as to the current effectiveness of oversight of executive actions in these areas. With regard to individual rights, the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals subject to congressional inquiries are protected by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, though in many important respects those rights may be qualified by Congress’s constitutionally rooted investigatory authority. A. Executive Privilege Executive privilege is a doctrine that enables the president to withhold certain information from disclosure to the public or even Congress.
  • Kentucky Lawyer, 1993

    Kentucky Lawyer, 1993

    KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF LAW-1993 APANTHEON OF DEANS: Tom Lewis, Bob Lawson, David Shipley and Bill' Campbell Ci David Shipley becomes Dean of the College of Law he College of Law welcomes David E. fall. His areas of legal expertise are copyright and ad­ Shipley as its new dean, effective July 1, ministrative law. His most recent publication is a 1993. Dean Shipley comes to us from the casebook, Copyright Law: Cases and Materials, West ~---~ University of Mississippi School of Law, Publishing 1992, with co-authors Howard Abrams of the where he served as Dean and Director of the Law Center University of Detroit School of Law and Sheldon for the last three years. Halpern of Ohio State University. Shipley also has Dean Shipley was raised in Champaign, Illinois, and published two editions of a treatise on administrative was graduated from University High School at the Uni­ procedure in South Carolina entitled South Carolina versity of Illinois. He received his B.A. degree with Administrative Law. He has taught Civil Procedure, Highest Honors in American History from Oberlin Col- Remedies, Domestic Relations and Intellectual Property lege in 1972, and is as well as Copyright and Administrative Law. In addi­ a 1975 graduate of tion, he has participated in a wide variety of activities the University of and functions sponsored by the South Carolina and Mis­ Chicago Law sissippi bars. School, where he Dean Shipley enjoys reading best-selling novels by was Executive authors such as Grisham, Crichton, Turow and Clancy as Editor of the Uni­ well as history books about the Civil War.
  • Necessary Implications of Skinner V. Switzer

    Necessary Implications of Skinner V. Switzer

    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 38 Acceess to Justice: Evolving Standards in Juvenile Justice: From Gault to Graham and Beyond January 2012 Ghosts of Innocent Men: Necessary Implications of Skinner v. Switzer Kathryn A. Harrington Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kathryn A. Harrington, Ghosts of Innocent Men: Necessary Implications of Skinner v. Switzer, 38 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 325 (2012), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol38/iss1/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ghosts of Innocent Men: Necessary Implications of Skinner v. Switzer Kathryn A. Harrington INTRODUCTION Two chicken thighs, a double bacon cheeseburger, fried catfish, onion rings, French fries, a salad with ranch dressing, and a milkshake.1 Forty-seven minutes were left when Hank Skinner‘s last meal was interrupted in dramatic fashion.2 The Supreme Court had issued a stay of execution pending resolution of his petition for certiorari.3 Untested DNA evidence exists, and questions about Skinner‘s guilt in a 1993 New Year‘s Eve triple murder remain.4 In J.D. Candidate (2012), Washington University Law School; B.A., Psychology (2006), Duke University. Special thanks to Lindsay Herf, Attorney/DNA Case Manager at the Arizona Justice Project, to Journal members Matthew Schoonover and Laura Vaughn for their fantastic edits and encouragement, and to Joanne, Neil, Joe, Maggie, and Harry Harrington.
  • When Congress Comes Calling: a Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry When Congress

    When Congress Comes Calling: a Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry When Congress

    When Congress Comes Calling: A Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry of Legislative on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics A Study When Congress 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Comes Calling 202.580.6920 Email: [email protected] A Study on the www.constitutionproject.org Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry Morton Rosenberg Constitution Project Fellow WHEN CONGRESS COMES CALLING: A Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry © 2017 The Constitution Project All Rights Reserved. Requests for permission to reproduce selections from this book should be sent to: The Constitution Project, 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036; or by e-mail to [email protected] The Constitution Project’s mission is to safeguard constitutional rights and values when they are threatened by our government’s criminal justice and national security practices, and to strengthen our system of checks and balances. The views expressed in this study do not necessarily reflect the views of individual members of The Constitution Project’s Board of Directors. For information about this report, or any other work of The Constitution Project, please visit our website at www.constitutionproject.org or e-mail us at [email protected]. Book design by Keane Design & Communications, Inc., keanedesign.com. Contents Preface Part I: Principles, Practices and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry Chapter 1 – Introduction: Updating the Study of Legislative Inquiry and Adapting it to the Changed Climate of Congressional Oversight ............................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 – The Institutional Framework of Congressional Oversight: Purposes, Powers, Limitations and Practicalities ................................................................................................... 5 A.
  • Front Matter

    Front Matter

    00-Fisher-PWP3(i-xviii)_00-Fisher-PWP3 7/5/13 1:26 PM Page vii © University Press of Kansas. All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution prohibited without permission of the Press. CONTENTS Preface xiii Note on Citations xix 1 The Constitutional Framework 1 The British Models 1 Opposing Monarchical Powers 3 Associated War Powers 6 Repelling Sudden Attacks 8 Separating Purse and Sword 11 Commander in Chief 12 Scholarly Analysis 14 2 Precedents from 1789 to 1900 17 Indian Wars 17 President as “Sole Organ” 20 The Whiskey Rebellion 22 Quasi-War with France 23 Neutrality Act Prosecutions 26 The “Little Sarah” Incident 31 Barbary Wars 32 The War of 1812 37 The Mexican War 38 Bombarding Greytown 44 The Civil War 47 Spanish-American War 51 3 America Steps Out: 1900–1945 55 Protecting Life and Property 56 President Wilson’s Forays 60 00-Fisher-PWP3(i-xviii)_00-Fisher-PWP3 7/5/13 1:26 PM Page viii © University Press of Kansas. All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution prohibited without permission of the Press. viii CONTENTS Intervention in Nicaragua 63 World War I 65 The Curtiss-Wright Case 68 Legislative Constraints in the 1930s 72 World War II 74 4 The UN Charter and Korea 80 The League of Nations 80 Creating the UN Charter 83 The UN Participation Act 90 Vandenberg Resolution 94 The Korean War 95 Political Repercussions 99 5 Taking Stock: 1951–1964 104 Mutual Security Treaties 104 NATO’s Legislative History 106 The “Great Debate” in 1951 110 The Steel Seizure Case 114 Eisenhower’s Philosophy 116 Area Resolutions 117 Kennedy Reasserts Executive Power 124 6 Vietnam and the War Powers Resolution 127 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution 128 Was There a Second Attack? 131 Escalation of the War 132 Free World Forces 135 National Commitments Resolution of 1969 137 Disputes in the Courts 139 The War Powers Resolution 144 Analyzing the WPR 148 Efforts to Amend the WPR 150 00-Fisher-PWP3(i-xviii)_00-Fisher-PWP3 7/5/13 1:26 PM Page ix © University Press of Kansas.
  • UK Law Notes, 2017

    UK Law Notes, 2017

    fall 2017 fall LAW NOTESuniversity of kentucky college of law Paying it Forward page 22 CREDITS DEAN 14 DAVID A. BRENNEN DIRECTOR OF MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS ASHLEY RITCHIE CONTRIBUTING WRITERS ALBERTINA ANTOGNINI CHARLES E. ENGLISH WHITNEY HARDER ASHLEY RITCHIE VIRGINIA DAVIS SCALES REBEKAH TILLEY 10 DESIGN ASHLEY RITCHIE PHOTOGRAPHY GRAD IMAGES J.A. LAUB PHOTOGRAPHY MARK CORNELISON PHOTOGRAPHY BY KELSEY RAE SHAUN RING PHOTOGRAPHY ASHLEY RITCHIE LEE P. THOMAS PHOTOGRAPHY PRINTING COPY EXPRESS ABOUT THIS MAGAZINE Law Notes is published annually for the alumni, students, faculty, staff 30 32 and friends of the University of Kentucky College of Law. All correspondence should be FACULTY IMPACT. directed to: TABLE 14 Law Notes Faculty Profile: Paul E. Salamanca UK College of Law 209 Law Building OF 15 United Way Campaign Lexington, KY 40506-0048 17 Developing Ideas Conference STATEMENT OF NON- CONTENTS DISCRIMINATION 20 Faculty Notes The University of Kentucky is committed to a policy of providing STUDENT IMPACT. ALUMNI IMPACT. educational opportunities to all academically qualified students 05 KLJ and KJEANRL Symposiums 22 Feature: Paying it Forward regardless of economic or social status and will not discriminate 06 Caleb Taylor: Bike the US for MS 30 Jason Sauer: Reporting for Duty on the basis of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, creed, 08 In re Gault Symposium 32 Chief Justice Visits UK religion, political belief, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, age, 36 Class Notes veteran status, or physical or 10 Commencement mental disability. The University of Kentucky College of Law is a 12 Future Alum: Katelyn Brown 42 Honor Roll of Donors member of the Association of American Law Schools and is approved by the American Bar Association.
  • Brief for Respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760 in Support of the Petitioner National Labor Relations Board

    Brief for Respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760 in Support of the Petitioner National Labor Relations Board

    76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page cov-1 No. 12-1281 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , Petitioner, v. NOEL CANNING , A D IVISION OF THE NOEL CORP ., and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , L OCAL 760, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 760 IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BRADLEY T. R AYMOND 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Of counsel: JAMES B. C OPPESS (Counsel of Record) LAURENCE GOLD 815 Sixteenth Street, N.W. 805 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 637-5337 Peake DeLancey Printers, LLC - (301) 341-4600 - Cheverly MD 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page cov-2 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................... ii STATEMENT ..................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................ 4 ARGUMENT ....................................................... 5 I. THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GRANTS THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO FILL VACANCIES DURING INTRASESSION RECESSES OF THE SENATE .................................... 5 II. THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO FILL UP ALL VACANCIES DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, REGARDLESS OF WHEN THOSE VACANCIES FIRST AROSE .... 18 III. UNDER THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE’S INTERPRETATION OF THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE, THE SENATE WAS IN RECESS ON JANUARY 4, 2012 ............. 22 CONCLUSION ................................................... 29 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page ii ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Evans v.
  • Post-Conviction Dna Testing: When Is Justice Served?

    Post-Conviction Dna Testing: When Is Justice Served?

    S. HRG. 106–1061 POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING: WHEN IS JUSTICE SERVED? HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 13, 2000 Serial No. J–106–88 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74–753 WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 68 DeWine, Hon.
  • J.Effeuon C!.Ountj G:Jublfo. :Befende't C!.O'tpo'tation

    J.Effeuon C!.Ountj G:Jublfo. :Befende't C!.O'tpo'tation

    ,. _foui1-u-iffe-:J.effeuon C!.ountJg:Jublfo . :befende't C!.o'tpo'tation LOUISVILLE METRO PUBLIC DEFENDER ADVO CACY PLAZA 701-719 WEST JEFFERSON STREET LOU ISVILLE, KEN TUCKY 40202-2732 502-574-3800 Fax 502-574-1414 e-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.louisvillemetropub licdefender .org LEO G. SMITH DANIELT . GOYETTE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEFENDER EMERITUS CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER November25, 2019 The HonorableMatt Bevin Governor of Kentucky State Capitol Building,Suite 100 700 capital Avenue Frankfort, KY 40601 Re: ClemencyRequest of GregoryW ilson Inmate No. 32847 KentuckyState Penitentiaryat Eddyville Dear Governor Bevin: Pleaseaccept this letter as a request for the commutation of GregoryWilson's death sentence. Mr. Wilson has been on death row at the KentuckyState Penitentiarysince October 31, 1988, following his conviction in Kenton Circuit Court for murder and other charges. Mr. Wilson is 62 years old and has spent literally half of his life on Kentucky'sdeath row, where he will undoubtedly die, one way or another. There is no issue of public safety involved, only a fair adjudication and a just resolution. As will be delineatedbelow, there are a multitude of reasons to commute his sentenceto life without parole, and no legitimate purposewill be served by seeking his execution. Fundamentalunfairness permeatedMr. Wilson'scapital prosecutionin Kenton County. From the start, the proceedingswere rife with legal error, malpractice,conflicts of interest, unprofessionalconduct and highly inappropriateacts by judicial officers. Abandonedby his assigned counseland left with unprepared,inept, unqualifiedvolunteer attorneys, his efforts to obtain qualified, prepared counselwere met with a mistakenconclusion that he wanted to represent himself. As a result of the abandonmentand incompetenceof his assigned lawyers, Mr.
  • The Human Rights Report Action P

    The Human Rights Report Action P

    Executive Director’s Message p 2 SCHR’s New Capital Defense Training Program p 3 The Price of Prison Privatization p 4 SCHR Settles Indigent Defense Class The Human Rights Report Action p 6 2012 Annual Newsletter of the Southern Center for Human Rights n www.schr.org SCHR Litigation Updates p 10 Honoring Steve Bright at the 2012 Frederick Douglass Dinner p 14 Celebrating Steve Bright’s First 30 Years at the Southern Center for Human Rights by George H. Kendall hirty years ago, Steve Bright departed Washington, DC, for Atlanta in a Glickman (now DC Court of U-Haul truck. He had just become the Executive Director of the then-South- Appeals Judge Stephen Glick- ern Prisoners Defense Committee (SPDC), a small organization dedicated man), Andy Lipps, Ellen Kreitz- Tto seeing that indigent prisoners throughout the American South had access burg, and others – signed on. By to legal counsel for post-conviction and prison conditions matters. assuring Palmer Singleton that The SPDC Board had pursued Steve for months. Although still a young attorney, the sailing on Lake Lanier was his reputation as a tireless, forceful, and highly skilled advocate had traveled widely. comparable to the Great Lakes, In two years at Apple Red, a legal services office in Kentucky, three at DC’s vaunted Steve lured Palmer to join SPDC. Public Defender Service, and three more as Executive Director of the DC Law Students Steve also reached out to the few In Court Program, he set the standard for excellence in advocacy and client relations. foundations that would consider The Board also sought Steve for yet another reason: beginning in 1980, Steve had funding capital representation, taken on, in his spare time, the representation of four condemned inmates in Geor- and began to bring in resources Daily ReportFulton photo gia, and had become thoroughly familiar with capital punishment and habeas corpus to set SPDC on more secure Stephen B.
  • Alabama Judicial Override: Is One Greater Than Twelve?

    Alabama Judicial Override: Is One Greater Than Twelve?

    Spring 2015 Alabama Judicial Override: Is One Greater than Twelve? A POST-FURMAN LOOK AT POTENTIAL DISPARITIES IN CAPITAL SENTENCING IN ALABAMA A Capstone project presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Policy Studies Adrian Lindekugel University of Washington Bothell School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences First Reader: Camille Walsh Second Reader: Dan Berger Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….…….2 Chapter 1 Historical Context of Override Furman v. Georgia……………………………………………..…………...…5 Gregg v. Georgia……………………………………………..…………….…8 Chapter 2 Statement of Problem…………………………………………………..…………….10 Purpose of Study……………………………………………………..………….…...12 Chapter 3 Literature Review…………………………………………………..…………….......13 Chapter 4 Methodology & Analysis…………………………………………………..………...16 Chapter 5 Case Study Results and Discussion Judicial Elections…………………………………………………………......18 Legal Representation………………………………………….………...…....23 Override Sentencing Findings……………………………….…………….....27 Chapter 6 Conclusion……………………………………………….…………………....……...30 Bibliography………………………………………………………….……….……...……...34 Appendices………………………………………….………………….………………….....36 1 | P a g e Introduction From low level drug offenses to capital murder, arrests and sentencing remain disproportionate in the United States. As a response to the Supreme Court’s Furman v. Georgia ruling against arbitrary sentencing in capital cases, the state of Alabama implemented the judicial override as a measure to give a defendant a second chance