DOCSLIB.ORG

Death Row U.S.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Death Row U.S.A DEATH ROW U.S.A. 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 [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively.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. 2011)) Questions Presented: (1) Does the existence of probable cause to make an arrest bar a 1st Amendment retaliatory arrest claim? (2) Did the 10th Circuit err by denying qualified and absolute immunity to petitioner Secret Service agents, where probable cause existed for respondent's arrest, the arrest comported with the 4th Amendment, it was not (and is not) clearly established that Hartman does not apply to 1st Amendment retaliatory arrest claims, and the denial of immunity threatens to interfere with the split-second, life-or-death decisions of Secret Service agents protecting the President and Vice President? United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210 (Constitutionality of law prohibiting misrepresentation) (decision below 617 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2010)) Question Presented: Is 18 U.S.C. 704(b) facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment? [18 U.S.C. 704(b) makes it a crime when anyone "falsely represents himself or herself, * * * verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States."] Fourth Amendment Alford v. Greene, No. 09-1478 (consolidated with 09-1454) (Interview of allegedly abused child at school without parental permission or a warrant) (decision below 588 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2009)) Question Presented: Does the 4th Amendment require a warrant, a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances before law enforcement and child welfare officials may conduct a temporary seizure and interview at a public school of a child whom they reasonably suspect was being sexually abused by her father? Florida v. Harris, No. 11-817 (Dog sniff of vehicle) (decision below 71 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011)) Question Presented: Has the Florida Supreme Court decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the established 4th Amendment precedent of this Court by holding that an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle? Florida v. Jardines, No. 11-564 (Dog sniff outside house) (decision below 73 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 2011)) Question Presented: Is a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog a 4th Amendment search requiring probable cause? Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1272 (Police-created exigent circumstances) (decision below 302 S.W.3d 649 (Ky. 2010)) Question Presented: When does lawful police action impermissibly "create" exigent circumstances which preclude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by the United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist? Ryburn v. Huff, No. 11-208 (Qualified immunity for officers entering a home without a warrant) (decision below Huff v. City of Burbank, 632 F.3d 539 (2011)) Decision: In a per curiam opinion, the Court reversed a 9th Circuit decision holding that police did not have qualified immunity in a suit alleging they entered a home without a warrant. Police officers are allowed to enter a home without a warrant if they reasonably believe that immediate entry is necessary to protect themselves or others from serious harm, even if the officers lack probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. Under the facts found by the District Court, the police had reason to fear for their safety. United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259 (Use of GPS) (decision below 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010)) Question Presented: (1) Did the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violate the 4th Amendment? (2) [added by the Court] Did the government violate respondent’s 4th Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent? Decision: The government’s installing and using a GPS to track a vehicle is a “search.” The 4th Amendment covers such a physical invasion of a person’s “effect.” The government’s argument that the search was reasonable is forfeited because it was not raised below. Fifth Amendment Blueford v. Arkansas, No. 10-1320 (Double jeopardy and lesser included offenses) (decision below 2011 Ark. 8 (Jan. 20, 2011)) Question Presented: If a jury deadlocks on a lesser-included offense, does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar reprosecution of a greater offense after a jury announces that it has voted against guilt on the greater offense? Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974 (Suggestive identification) (decision below NHSC 2009- 0590 App. 1 (Nov. 18, 2010)) Question Presented: Do the due process protections against unreliable identification evidence apply to all identifications made under suggestive circumstances, as held by the 1st and other federal courts of appeal, or only when the suggestive circumstances were orchestrated by the police, as held by the New Hampshire Supreme Court and other courts? Decision: Juries should decide the reliability of testimony, with rare exception. When the police arrange an identification process that is unnecessarily suggestive, the Due Process Clause requires a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of the testimony both to deter the police and to protect the defendant. When the police are not involved in creating the circumstances, even if they are suggestive, no judicial screening is required. Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 Sixth Amendment Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191 (Right to confront lab analyst) (decision below 657 S.E.2d 113 (Va. 2008)) Question Presented: If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness? Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209 (Guilty pleas and ineffective assistance of counsel) (decision below 376 Fed. Appx. 563 (6th Cir. 2010)) Questions Presented: (1) Is a state habeas petitioner entitled to relief where his counsel deficiently advises him to reject a favorable plea bargain but the defendant is later convicted and sentenced pursuant to a fair trial? (2) (Added by the Court) What remedy, if any, should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures? Decision: A petitioner is entitled to relief where counsel was ineffective in the plea bargaining process if he can show that but for the advice there is a reasonable probability that the plea would have been presented to the court, who would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction and/or sentence, would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence imposed. Going to trial and being convicted does not wipe clean the constitutional violation. Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-1001 (Right to counsel in post-conviction) (decision below 623 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010)) Question Presented: Does a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first post-conviction proceeding, have a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of first post-conviction counsel specifically with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim? Decision: Yes. When a state law requires that an issue be considered for the first time in post-conviction rather than on direct appeal, a defendant is entitled to effective counsel to litigate that issue in post-conviction. When the state asserts that such a claim has been defaulted, the defendant must show that his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is substantial, and he did not have effective counsel in post-conviction. Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444 (Ineffective assistance and guilty pleas) (decision below 311 S.W.3d 350 (Ct.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]