DOCSLIB.ORG

Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Handbook Are Intended to Provide Current and Accurate Information About the Subject Matter Covered

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Handbook Are Intended to Provide Current and Accurate Information About the Subject Matter Covered FIXING A BROKEN SYSTEM: WHERE DO WE STAND ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ABA'S KENTUCKY ASSESSMENT REPORT ON THE DEATH PENALTY? Sponsor: Criminal Law Section CLE Credit: 1.0 Wednesday, June 21, 2017 3:35 p.m. - 4:35 p.m. East Ballroom C-D Owensboro Convention Center Owensboro, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenters ................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction: Genesis of the ABA's Death Penalty Assessments Project ............. 1 Highlights of the Report ....................................................................................... 3 Summary of the Report ...................................................................................... 14 THE PRESENTERS Professor Allison I. Connelly University of Kentucky Legal Clinic 630 Maxwelton Court Lexington, Kentucky 40506 (859) 257-4692 [email protected] PROFESSOR ALLISON I. CONNELLY is a Professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She teaches litigation skills, criminal procedure, criminal trial process, legal writing, and is the Director of the Kentucky Legal Education Opportunity Summer Institute. Prior to joining the faculty at UK, Professor Connelly spent thirteen years as a state public defender. She is the first and only woman to have been named as Kentucky's Public Advocate. Professor Connelly received her B.A. and J.D. from the University of Kentucky. She is the founder of the Kentucky Intrastate Mock Trial Competition and serves as the coach of U.K's trial teams. Professor Connelly is the recipient of the 2011 Kentucky Bar Association Service to Young Lawyers Award, the 2011 NAACP Award for the Empowerment of Underserved Populations, and the 2009 UK Alumni Association Great Teacher Award. Professor Linda S. Ewald Louis D. Brandeis School of Law University of Louisville 2 Brownsboro Hill Road Louisville, Kentucky 40207 (502) 599-7534 [email protected] PROFESSOR LINDA S. EWALD is a professor emeritis at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, where she served as a full-time faculty member for thirty-five years and as associate dean for seventeen of those years. Ms. Ewald served on the Judicial Nominating Commission for Jefferson County, the board of directors of the Louisville-Jefferson County Public Defender Corporation, and the Kentucky Bar Association’s Ethics 2000 Committee. She is a graduate of the University of Louisville and received her J.D. from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. i Representative Joseph M. Fischer 126 Dixie Place Ft. Thomas, Kentucky 41075 (513) 794-6442 [email protected] REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH M. FISCHER represents House District 68, which includes part of Campbell County. He is Chair of House Judiciary Committee and Co- Chair of the Juvenile Justice Oversight Council. He serves on the Banking & Insurance, Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs, and Judiciary Committees. He received his B.A. from Holy Cross College and his J.D. from the University of Cincinnati. Representative Fischer received the Northern Kentucky Right to Life John J. Bauer Service Award in 1998 and serves on the Board of Greater Cincinnati Lawyers for Life. He is a member of the Defense Research Institute, Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy, and the Kentucky, Ohio, and Cincinnati Bar Associations. Representative Jason M. Nemes Nemes Eade, PLLC 10627 Gleneagle Place Louisville, Kentucky 40223-2666 (502) 648-8418 [email protected] REPRESENTATIVE JASON M. NEMES practices at the law firm of Nemes Eade, PLLC in Louisville. He is also a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives, where he represents portions of eastern Jefferson County and southern Oldham County. In the General Assembly, Mr. Nemes oversees the Court of Justice's and Justice Cabinet’s budgets as chair of the House Budget Review Subcommittee on Justice, Public Safety, & Judiciary. He also serves as a member of the Appropriations & Revenue, Judiciary, Elections and Constitutional Amendments, and Economic Development and Workforce Investment committees. Prior to practicing law, Mr. Nemes served as the Chief of Staff to the Office of the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. He graduated from Western Kentucky University and the University of Louisville School of Law, where he has served periodically as an adjunct professor. ii Misty C. Thomas American Bar Association 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 662-7671 [email protected] MISTY C. THOMAS serves as the director of the American Bar Association's Death Penalty Due Process Review Project. She received her B.A. from Claremont McKenna College and her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. Ms. Thomas is a member of the District of Columbia and Maryland Bar Associations. Senator Whitney Westerfield 700 South Main Street Post Office Box 1107 Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42241 (270) 885-7671 SENATOR WHITNEY WESTERFIELD was first elected to the Kentucky State Senate in 2012, representing Christian, Todd, and Logan counties in Western Kentucky. He currently serves as the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as a member of the Capital Planning Advisory Board, Tobacco Fund Settlement Oversight, Agriculture, Natural Resources & Energy, Veterans/Military Affairs/Public Protection, and the Program Review & Investigations Committees in the State Senate. In 2013, Senator Westerfield served as Co-Chair of the Juvenile Code Reform Task Force and during the 2014 Regular Session sponsored Senate Bill 200, reflecting the work of the Task Force and bringing about the largest reform to Kentucky’s juvenile justice system in thirty years. He continues juvenile justice policy work as Co-Chair of the SB200 Oversight Council, overseeing the implementation of the bill as well as exploring numerous other juvenile justice policies. In 2016, Senator Westerfield was appointed to the Governor's Criminal Justice Policy Assessment Council to review possible reforms to Kentucky's criminal code. He is presently an attorney with the Fletcher Law Firm in Hopkinsville after serving over five years as an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney. Senator Westerfield has long been an active member of his community, having served on the Boys and Girls Club Board of Directors, as a member of the Kiwanis Club and former member of the Kiwanis Board of Directors. He also served as chair of the Kiwanis Club Soap Box Derby Committee in 2008 and 2009. He has served on the Hopkinsville American Red Cross Advisory Committee, the Board for the United Way of the Pennyrile, and as United Way Board Chair in 2012. Currently, Senator Westerfield serves on the Board for Alpha Alternative, a crisis pregnancy care center in Hopkinsville and the Kentucky Association of Child Advocacy Centers. He received his B.S., with university and departmental honors, at the University of Kentucky and his J.D. from Southern Illinois University School of Law. Senator Westerfield is a member of the Kentucky and Tennessee Bar Associations. iii Judge James A. "Jay" Wethington II Daviess Circuit Court Division 1 100 East Second Street Owensboro, Kentucky 42303 (270) 687-7226 [email protected] JUDGE JAMES A. "JAY" WETHINGTON II was elected to the circuit court bench to complete the un-expired term of Henry M. (Mac) Griffin and has been serving as the Chief Circuit Judge since 2007. Before assuming the circuit court bench he served as Commonwealth’s Attorney for Daviess County having been appointed to that position by the governor in August, 1995, and continuing in that elected position until December, 2007. During service as Daviess County Commonwealth’s Attorney Judge Wethington eventually became the president of the St. Joseph’s Peace Mission for Children, a home for abused and neglected children, which was built by public support for such a facility following the rape and murder of four-year-old Phillip Strain. As the chief prosecutor for the 6th Judicial Circuit, Daviess County, he was named as the Attorney General’s Outstanding Commonwealth’s Attorney of the Year in 2003 in recognition of his work as special prosecutor for the Attorney General throughout Western Kentucky and received the Kentucky Commonwealth Attorneys Association's President’s Award for Outstanding Service to Prosecutors in 2004.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and Welcome to the Death
    Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and welcome to the Death Penalty Information Center’s podcast exploring issues related to capital punishment. In this edition, we will discuss the legal process in death penalty trials and appeals. How is a death penalty trial different from other trials? There are several differences between death penalty trials and traditional criminal proceedings. In most criminal cases, there is a single trial in which the jury determines whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty, the judge then determines the sentence. However, death penalty cases are divided into two separate trials. In the first trial, juries weigh the evidence of the crime to determine guilt or innocence. If the jury decides that the defendant is guilty, there is a second trial to determine the sentence. At the sentencing phase of the trial, jurors usually have only two options: life in prison without the possibility of parole, or a death sentence. During this sentencing trial, juries are asked to weigh aggravating factors presented by the prosecution against mitigating factors presented by the defense. How is a jury chosen for a death penalty trial? Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. The legal counsel for both the prosecution and defense have an opportunity to submit questions to determine any possible bias in the case. However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM ORDER ) Case No
    Case 2:07-cr-00023-EJL Document 284 Filed 02/26/08 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM ORDER ) Case No. CR07-23-N-EJL vs. ) ) JOSEPH EDWARD DUNCAN, III, ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Pending before the Court are the Defendant’s Motions to Declare the Federal Death Penalty Act Unconstitutional. The Government has filed a single response to the motions and the time for filing any reply has expired. The matter is ripe for the Court’s consideration. Having fully reviewed the record herein, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, this motion shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral argument. Local Rule 7.1(d)(2)(ii). Factual and Procedural Background The Defendant, Joseph Edward Duncan, III, was charged with multiple crimes relating to events occurring in northern Idaho between May of 2005 and July of 2005. Three of the counts carry the potential for a sentence of death: Kidnapping Resulting in Death, Sexual Exploitation of a Child Resulting in Death, and Using a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence MEMORANDUM ORDER - 1 Case 2:07-cr-00023-EJL Document 284 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 4 Resulting in Death. The Government filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda: June 20, 2014 Executive Committee Meeting
    MEETING AGENDA Friday, June 20, 2014 Weisiger Theater, Grant Hall, Norton Center for the Arts ~ Centre College Members, Council on Postsecondary Education Glenn D. Denton, Paducah Pam Miller, Lexington (chair) Maryanne Honeycutt Elliott, Louisville Donna Moore, Lexington Joe E. Ellis, Benton Marcia Milby Ridings, London Dan E. Flanagan, Campbellsville (vice chair) Carolyn Ridley, Bowling Green Joe Graviss, Versailles Robert H. Staat, (faculty member) Terry Holliday, Commissioner of Education Arnold Taylor, Edgewood (ex officio, nonvoting) Joseph B. Wise, Louisville Dennis M. Jackson, Paducah Sherrill B. Zimmerman, Prospect Glenn Means, Mount Sterling (student member) Robert L. King, CPE President The Council on Postsecondary Education is Kentucky’s statewide postsecondary and adult education coordinating agency charged with leading the reform efforts envisioned by state policy leaders in the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act of 1997. The Council does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability in employment or the provision of services, and provides, upon request, reasonable accommodation, including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in all programs and activities. Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, 1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 320, Frankfort KY 40601, Ph: (502) 573-1555, Fax: (502) 573-1535, http://cpe.ky.gov Twitter: https://twitter.com/cpenews Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KYCPE Printed with state funds AGENDA Council on Postsecondary Education Friday, June 20, 2014 9:00 AM Weisiger Theater, Grant Hall, Norton Center for the Arts ~ Centre College 1. Welcome 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3 4. Resolutions 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Compendium of State Education Rankings 2015
    Legislative Research Commission Office Of Education Accountability Compendium Of State Education Rankings 2015 Research Report No. 413 Prepared By Karen M. Timmel; Gerald W. Hoppmann; Brenda Landy; Albert Alexander; Cassiopia Blausey; Deborah Nelson, PhD; and Sabrina Olds Compendium Of State Education Rankings 2015 Project Staff Karen M. Timmel, Acting Director Gerald W. Hoppmann, Research Manager Brenda Landy Albert Alexander Cassiopia Blausey Deborah Nelson, PhD Sabrina Olds Research Report No. 413 Legislative Research Commission Frankfort, Kentucky lrc.ky.gov Accepted September 15, 2015, by the Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee Paid for with state funds. Available in alternative format by request. Legislative Research Commission Foreword Office Of Education Accountability Foreword In December 2014, the Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee approved the 2015 research agenda for the Office of Education Accountability, which included this edition of the Compendium Of State Education Rankings. This publication is intended to offer legislators and the public a convenient source of information about how Kentucky compares to other states on key public elementary and secondary education indicators. Compendiums are updated and issued biennially. David A. Byerman Director Legislative Research Commission Frankfort, Kentucky October 2015 i Legislative Research Commission Contents Office Of Education Accountability Contents Summary ..........................................................................................................................................v
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Significant Findings from The
    AN OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FROM THE CAPITAL JURY PROJECT AND OTHER EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE DEATH PENALTY RELEVANT TO JURY SELECTION, PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CAPITAL CASES JOHN H. BLUME CORNELL LAW SCHOOL 110 MYRON TAYLOR HALL ITHACA, NY 14853-4901 (607) 255-1030 [email protected] FALL 2008 Introduction The Capital Jury Project Studies--and other less comprehensive empirical and mock juror studies--provide extraordinarily useful information for lawyers involved in capital litigation. In this memorandum, I will provide an overview of selected, significant empirical findings, and, in some instances, offer suggestions as to how these findings may be used by capital defense lawyers. There is a temptation to ignore these studies, in part because some of the information contained in them is not encouraging or goes against the “conventional wisdom.” I am convinced, however, that we are better off confronting the information, and making fresh assessments about appropriate responses. This is not to say that there aren’t methodological problems with some of these studies, nor is it to deny that any individual study fail to capture the complexity of capital litigation. But there is valuable information here, particularly about what can go wrong, and what can be done to avoid some well-established pitfalls. I hope that this memorandum will facilitate the discussion and implementation of creative strategies leading to more effective representation of both clients facing the death penalty and those who have been sentenced to death. Additionally, if you have ideas for empirical research projects in your state that may be of interest to the Cornell Death Penalty Project, please do not hesitate to contact me.
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Jury Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Doing Death in Texas: Language and Jury Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials Author: Robin Helene Conley Document No.: 236354 Date Received: November 2011 Award Number: 2009-IJ-CX-0005 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Doing Death in Texas: Language and Jury Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology by Robin Helene Conley 2011 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Significant
    AN OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FROM THE CAPITAL JURY PROJECT AND OTHER EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE DEATH PENALTY RELEVANT TO JURY SELECTION, PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CAPITAL CASES JOHN H. BLUME CORNELL LAW SCHOOL 110 MYRON TAYLOR HALL ITHACA, NY 14853-4901 (607) 255-1030 [email protected] FALL 2008 Introduction The Capital Jury Project Studies--and other less comprehensive empirical and mock Juror studies--provide extraordinarily useful information for lawyers involved in capital litigation. In this memorandum, I will provide an overview of selected, significant empirical findings, and, in some instances, offer suggestions as to how these findings may be used by capital defense lawyers. There is a temptation to ignore these studies, in part because some of the information contained in them is not encouraging or goes against the “conventional wisdom.” I am convinced, however, that we are better off confronting the information, and making fresh assessments about appropriate responses. This is not to say that there areN’t methodological problems with some of these studies, nor is it to deny that any individual study fail to capture the complexity of capital litigation. But there is valuable information here, particularly about what can go wrong, and what can be done to avoid some well-established pitfalls. I hope that this memorandum will facilitate the discussion and implementation of creative strategies leading to more effective representation of both clients facing the death penalty and those who have been sentenced to death. Additionally, if you have ideas for empirical research projects in your state that may be of interest to the Cornell Death Penalty Project, please do not hesitate to contact me.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Teachers' Perceptions of Student Management with Out-Of-School Suspensions and High School Graduati
    Eastern Kentucky University Encompass Online Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship January 2014 The Relationship Between Teachers' Perceptions Of Student Management With Out-Of-School Suspensions And High School Graduation Rates Caryn Letcher Huber Eastern Kentucky University Follow this and additional works at: https://encompass.eku.edu/etd Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons Recommended Citation Huber, Caryn Letcher, "The Relationship Between Teachers' Perceptions Of Student Management With Out-Of-School Suspensions And High School Graduation Rates" (2014). Online Theses and Dissertations. 278. https://encompass.eku.edu/etd/278 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Encompass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Online Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Encompass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS’PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT MANAGEMENT WITH OUT-OF-SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS AND HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES By CARYN LETCHER HUBER Master of Arts College of Notre Dame Baltimore, Maryland 2005 Bachelor of Arts University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 1995 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School Eastern Kentucky University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December, 2014 Copyright © Caryn Huber, 2014 All Rights Reserved ii DEDICATION I wish to dedicate this research to my long family lineage of ambitious women. Starting with my great-grandmother, Lula Pearl who graduated from Eastern Kentucky State College in July, 1957 as an elementary teacher. Following her example in purpose and passion for children, my grandmother, Nancy Jane, who raised and cared for several youngsters.
    [Show full text]
  • War and Peace in the Jury Room: How Capital Juries Reach Unanimity Scott E
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 62 | Issue 1 Article 3 11-2010 War and Peace in the Jury Room: How Capital Juries Reach Unanimity Scott E. Sundby Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Scott E. Sundby, War and Peace in the Jury Room: How Capital Juries Reach Unanimity, 62 Hastings L.J. 103 (2010). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol62/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Sundby_62-HLJ-103.doc (Do Not Delete) 1/7/2011 12:10 PM War and Peace in the Jury Room: How Capital Juries Reach Unanimity Scott E. Sundby* Using data from the Capital Jury Project, this Article takes a close look inside the jury room at the process by which capital juries reach a unanimous verdict at the penalty phase. The Article first examines the relationship between first ballot voting patterns and the ultimate sentence, then explores the dynamics of group interaction in achieving unanimity. In particular, by using the jurors’ own narratives, the piece delves into the psychological process and arguments through which the majority jurors persuade the holdouts to change their votes. This process is especially intriguing because individual juries do not, of course, have any training in how to deliberate and reach unanimity, and yet they are strikingly similar from case to case in how they convert holdouts to the majority position (with striking differences between the dynamics of juries that reach a verdict of death and those that return a sentence of life without parole).
    [Show full text]
  • Future Dangerousness in Capital Cases: Always at Issue John H
    Cornell Law Review Volume 86 Article 3 Issue 2 January 2001 Future Dangerousness in Capital Cases: Always at Issue John H. Blume Stephen P. Garvey Sheri Lynn Johnson Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John H. Blume, Stephen P. Garvey, and Sheri Lynn Johnson, Future Dangerousness in Capital Cases: Always at Issue, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 397 (2001) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol86/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS IN CAPITAL CASES: ALWAYS "AT ISSUE" John H. Blune,t Stephen P. Garveyl & Sheri LynnJohnsonlt- Under Simmons v. South Carolina, a capital defendant who, if not sentenced to death, will remain in prison with no chance of parole is consti- tutionally entitled to an instruction inforning the juiy of thatfact, but only if the prosecution engages in conduct that places the defendant'sfuture dan- gerousness "at issue." Based on data collectedfrom interviews with South Carolina capitaljurors, Professors Blum4 Garmey, and Johnson argue that future dangerousness is on the minds of most capitaljurors,and is thus "at issue" in virtually all capitaltrials, regardless of the proscution's conduct. Accordingly, the authors argue that the "at issue" requirement of Simmons serves no real purpose and should be eliminated.
    [Show full text]
  • Compendium of State Education Rankings 2009
    Legislative Research Commission Office of Education Accountability Compendium of State Education Rankings 2009 Research Report No. 370 Office of Education Accountability Legislative Research Commission Frankfort, Kentucky Prepared by lrc.ky.gov Marcia Ford Seiler, Director; Brenda Landy; Ken Chilton, Ph.D.; Al Alexander; Deborah Nelson, Ph.D.; Sabrina Olds; Brad Parke; Keith White, Ph.D.; and Pam Young Compendium of State Education Rankings 2009 Project Staff Marcia Ford Seiler, Director Brenda Landy Ken Chilton, Ph.D. Al Alexander Deborah Nelson, Ph.D. Sabrina Olds Brad Parke Keith White, Ph.D. Pam Young Research Report No. 370 Legislative Research Commission Frankfort, Kentucky lrc.ky.gov Accepted May 14, 2010, by the Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee Paid for with state funds. Available in alternate form by request. Legislative Research Commission Foreword Office of Education Accountability Foreword In November 2008, the Education Assessment and Accountability Review Subcommittee approved the Office of Education Accountability’s 2009 research agenda which included this edition of the Compendium of State Education Rankings. This publication is intended to offer legislators and the public a convenient source of information about how Kentucky compares to other states on key public elementary and secondary education indicators. Compendiums are updated and issued annually. Robert Sherman Director Legislative Research Commission Frankfort, Kentucky May 14, 2010 i Legislative Research Commission Contents Office of
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Colorado Method of Capital Voir Dire Page 1 of 13
    Champion - Overview of the Colorado Method of Capital Voir Dire Page 1 of 13 NACDL Home > News And The Champion > Champion Magazine > 2010 Issues The Champion November 2010 , Page 18 Search the Champion Looking for something specific? Overview of the Colorado Method of Capital Voir Dire By Matthew Rubenstein The Colorado Method of capital voir dire is a structured approach to capital jury selection that is being used successfully in state and federal jurisdictions across the United States. Colorado Method capital voir dire follows several simple principles: (1) jurors are selected based on their life and death views only; (2) pro-death jurors (jurors who will vote for a death sentence) are removed utilizing cause challenges, and attempts are made to retain potential life-giving jurors; (3) pro-death jurors are questioned about their ability to respect the decisions of the other jurors, and potential life-giving jurors are questioned about their ability to bring a life result out of the jury room; and (4) peremptory challenges are prioritized based on the prospective jurors’ views on punishment. The capital defense community traditionally has done a remarkably poor job in voir dire and jury selection. Research conducted by the Capital Jury Project — based upon interviews of more than 1,200 jurors who actually made the life or death sentencing decisions in 350 capital trials in 14 death penalty states — established that: (1) many pro-death jurors who are constitutionally impaired and subject to defense cause challenges nonetheless have served on capital juries and, furthermore, (2) a large portion of the jurors who do serve fundamentally misunderstand and misapply the constitutional principles that govern the sentencing decision-making process.
    [Show full text]