DOCSLIB.ORG

State of Utah V. John R. Pinder : Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Box 5988 Laura Dupaix 160 Second Street East, Suite 216 Assistant Attorney General Ketchum, Idaho 83340 160 East 300 South, 6th Floor Telephone: (208) 726-1010 P.O. Box 140854 Facsimile: (208)726-1187 Salt Lake Qty, Utah 84114 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee FILED UTAH APPELLATE COURTS APR 2 6 2004 Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. 20030484-SC v. JOHNRPINDER, 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. Box 5988 Laura Dupaix 160 Second Street East, Suite 216 Assistant Attorney General Ketchum, Idaho 83340 160 East 300 South, 6th Floor Telephone: (208) 726-1010 P.O. Box 140854 Facsimile: (208) 726-1187 Salt Lake Qty, Utah 84114 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..". 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED . 1 RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 I. Course of Proceedings 3 II. Introduction .. 4 III. Trial Testimony 7 A. The Killings According to Ruiz • 7 B. The Destruction of Evidence According to Ruiz 9 C Filomeno Ruiz's Background 12 D. Ruiz's Conflicting Statements 14 E. David Brunyer's Account 15 F. The Testimony of Jailhouse Informant Newly Welch 19 G. The Purported Admissions of John Pinder 21 H. Other Defense Testimony 23 IV. Motion for New Trial 24 A. Ruiz's Admissions 25 B. Brunyer's Admissions 27 C The Real Ruiz - Ruiz's Drug Dealings and Involvement in a Prior Drug Murder 32 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 35 i Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. LAW AND ARGUME NT .38 L IHE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE NEW TRIAL BASED UPON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE 38 A- JoeySilva 42 B. Additional Evidence 45 IL THE STATE VIOLATED ITS DUTY TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WHICH REQUIRES REVERSAL OFTHE CONVICTIONS 51 III. THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULINGS REQUIRE ANEWTRIAL 63 A. Melissa Gowles' Testimony 63 1. Summary of Relevant Facts 63 2. The Trial Court Erred in Allowing the Prosecution to Gall DeHart for the Primaiy Purpose of Introducing Otherwise Inadmissible Evidence 66 3. The Admission of This Testimony Violated Rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence 70 B. Bernie Knapp and Damien Gowles' Testimony 72 C Brunyer's Extrajudicial Statements Were Improperly Admitted 74 1. Brunyer's Statements to Andrea Were Not Admissible as Prior Consistent Statements Under URE Rule 801(d)(1)(B) 74 2. Andrea's Written Summary of Brunyer's Statements Was Not Admissible as a Prior Consistent Statement by Brunyer Under URE Rule 801(d)(1)(B) 79 D. Conclusion 80 ii Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. IV. THE JURY INSTRUCTION ON COMPULSION VIOLATED APPELLANTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY IMPROPERLY REDUCING THE STATE'S BURDEN OF PROOF 80 CONCLUSION 83 ADDENDUM ADDENDUM A - PROVISIONS OF CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES AND RULES ADDENDUM B - FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL in Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Banks v Dretke, 124 S. Q. 1256 (2004) 55,56 Bergrv United, 295 US. 78 (1932) 55 BcUenbachv United States, 326 US. 607 (1946) 47 Bracyv Graniey, 520 US. 899 (1997) 55 Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 53,59 Brenenunv Kennecott Corp., 799 F.2d 470 (9th Or. 1986) 75 Chambers v Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 83 Chapmtnv California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) 1,2,3 Craifordv Washingon, VIA S.Q.1354 (2004) 69 Gigiov United States, 405 US. 150(1972) 53,59 Kyles v Whitley, 514 US. 419 (1995) 53,55,56,58,60,61 Napuev Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) 54 Olmsteadv United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) 55 Parson v Galetka, 57 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Uah 1995) 57 Penns^mrid v Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) 53 Ringv Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) 45 Sandstromv Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) 82 Scott vMullin, 303 F.3d 1222 (10th Or. 2002) 51 Stricklerv Greene, 527 US. 263 (1999) 54,55, 56 iv Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. UmtedStates v A Ibers, 93 F.3d 1469 (10th Or. 1996) 75 United States v A&trs, All US. 97 (1976) 53,55 UmtedStates v Bagey, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 53,55 UmtedStates v Boo, 189 F.3d 860 (9th Or. 1999) . 76 United States v Oxmcd Foundation, Inc., 272 US. 1 (1926) 55 United States v Collicott, 92 F.3d 973 (9th Or. 1996) 75,76 United States v Esparza, 291 F.3d 1052 (9th Or. 2003) 76 UmtedStates v Fernandez, 892 F.2d 976 (11th Or. 1989) 70 United States v Forrester, 60 F.3d 52 (2d Or. 1995) 76,79 United States vGomzz-Gallanb, 915 F2d 553 (9th Or. 1990) 67,68 United States v Hogin, 763 F.2d 687 (5th Or. 1985) 67 United States v Ince, 21 F.3d 576 (4th Or. 1994) 67,69 United States v Johnson, 802 F.2d 1459 (D.C Or. 1986) 67 UmtedStates v Lazada-Rkera, 177 F.3d 98 (1st Or. 1999) 78 United States v Miller, 874 F.2d 1255 (9th Or. 1989) 76 United States v Moreno, 94 F.3d 1453 (10th Or. 1996) 76 UmtedStates v Petemun, 841 F.2d 1474 (10th Or. 1988) 66,67 United States v Prieto, 232 F.3d 816 (11th Or. 2000) 76 United States v Riddle, 103 F.3d423 (5th Or. 1997) 76 UmtedStates v Tome, 513 U.S. 150 (1995) 74,75 v Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. STATE CASES Julian v State, 2002 UT 61,52 P.3d 1168 39,40 State vAsay, 631 P.2d 861 (1981) 78 State v Bakakni 1999 UT 45,979 P.2d 799 59 State v Cruz-Meza, 2003 UT 32,18,76 P.3d 1165 2 Statev DeCorso, 1999 UT 57,179,993 P.2d 837 44 State v Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) 44 State v Garria, 2001 UT App 19,18 P.2d 1123 81 State v Hansen, 734 P.2d 421 (Utah 1986) 82 State vjaegr, 973 P.2d 404 (UT 1999) 67,72 State v Jams, 819 P.2d 781 (Utah 1991) 39,40,42,43 State v Jamil, 608 P.2d 218 (Utah 1980) 54 State v Johnson, 856 P.2d 1064 (Utah 1993) 70 StatevKnoU,712R2d2U (Utah 1985) 81 State v Larson, 775 P.2d 415 (Utah 1989) 57 State v Loose, 2000 UT 11,994 P.2d 1237 1,2,41,77,78 Statev Martin, 1999 UT 72,984 P.2d 975 (Martini) 39,40,57 State v Martin, 2002 UT 34,44 P.3d 805 (MartinII) 39,40,50 State v Martinez, 2002 UT App 126,47P.3d 115 43 State vMitdxson, 560P.2d 1120 (Utah 1977) 83 State vMontoya, 2004 UT 5,84 P.3d 1183 39 VI Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. State v Plieg), 1999 UT 8,974 P.2d 279 58 State vRamey, 782 P.2d 480 (Utah 1989) 70 State v Sibert, 310 P.2d 388 (Utah 1957) .' 78 State v Speer, 718 P.2d383 (Utah 1986) 78 State v Spry, 2001 UT App 75,21 P.2d 675 57,58 State v Stewrt, 724 P.2d 610 (Utah 1986) 43 State v Ki«8»,2001Ur5,20P3d271 (Utah 2001) 74 Statev Worihen,7(>b P.2d839 (Utah 1988) 39 Walker v State, 624 P.2d 687 (Utah 1981) 54 Wukbamv Galetka, 2002 UT 72,61 P.3d 978 39,40 STATE STATUTES AND RULES Utah Code Ann.
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 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]