DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 19-1348 In the Supreme Court of the United States IN RE: FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS’ EXECUTION PROTOCOL CASES JAMES H. ROANE, JR., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. (CAPITAL CASE) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General MARK B. STERN MELISSA N. PATTERSON Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED (CAPITAL CASE) 1. Whether Congress’s direction in the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 (FDPA) that federal execu- tions be implemented “in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed,” 18 U.S.C. 3596(a), requires federal compliance with subsidiary procedural details of state execution proto- cols, including those that do not bind the State. 2. Whether the court of appeals permissibly relied on the text of an execution-procedures protocol issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in determining whether that protocol complies with the FDPA. 3. Whether BOP’s execution protocol, which “ex- plains internal government procedures and does not create any legally enforceable rights or obligations,” Pet. App. 144a, is a procedural rule exempt from notice- and-comment rulemaking. (I) ADDITIONAL RELATED PROCEEDING Supreme Court of the United States: Roane v. Barr (In re Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Ex- ecution Protocol Cases), No. 19A1050 (pending stay ap- plication filed June 10, 2020) (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 A. Statutory and regulatory background .................... 2 B. Prior proceedings ...................................................... 7 Argument ..................................................................................... 12 I. Petitioners’ FDPA claim lacks merit and does not warrant this Court’s review ....................................... 13 A. The court of appeals correctly rejected petitioners’ FDPA claim ......................................... 14 B. Petitioners’ FDPA claim does not warrant review ....................................................................... 24 II. Petitioners’ other questions presented lack merit and do not warrant review ......................................... 26 A. The court of appeals properly relied on the text of the protocol and its decision does not warrant review ........................................................ 27 B. The court of appeals properly concluded that the protocol is not subject to the notice-and- comment requirement and its decision does not warrant review ........................................................ 30 Conclusion ................................................................................... 34 Appendix — DOJ press release (June 15, 2020) ................... 1a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: American Hosp. Ass’n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037 (D.C. Cir. 1987).............................................................................. 30 Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740 (1948) ............... 15, 22 Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368 (1893).............................................................. 24 Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) ....................................... 5, 20 Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019) ......... 3, 6, 26, 33 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Clarian Health West, LLC v. Hargan, 878 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ............................................. 33 Community Nutrition Inst. v. Young, 818 F.2d 943 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ............................................. 33 Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383 (2015).............................................................. 24 Electronic Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .............. 31, 32 Federal Power Comm’n v. Texaco, Inc., 417 U.S. 380 (1974).............................................................. 28 Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118 (2018) ...................................... 15 James V. Hurson Assocs., Inc. v. Glickman, 229 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ............................................. 32 Jennings v. Stephens, 574 U.S. 271 (2015) .......................... 25 Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1999) ........................ 19 National Mining Ass’n v. McCarthy, 758 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ............................................................. 30, 31 Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294 (1933).............................................................. 18 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943)............... 27, 28, 29 United States v. Howard, 352 U.S. 212 (1957) ................... 23 United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (1992) .................................................................................... 23 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 139 S. Ct. 361 (2018) ................................................. 21 Wisniewski v. United States, 353 U.S. 901 (1957) ............. 32 Constitution, statutes, regulations and rules: U.S. Const: Amend. I ............................................................................. 7 Amend. V ............................................................................ 7 Amend. VI .......................................................................... 7 V Constitution, statutes, regulations, and rules—Continued: Page Amend. VIII................................................................... 6, 7 Act of Apr. 30, 1790, ch. 9, 1 Stat. 112.................................... 3 § 1, 1 Stat. 112 .................................................................... 3 § 3, 1 Stat. 113 .................................................................... 3 §§ 8-10, 1 Stat. 113-114...................................................... 3 § 33, 1 Stat. 119 ............................................................ 3, 14 Act of June 19, 1937, ch. 367, 50 Stat. 304 ................. 4, 15, 18 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. ................................................................ 7 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(2)(A) ....................................................... 30 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) ....................................................... 33 Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ................. 7 Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, Tit. VI, 108 Stat. 1959 ............................................ 4 18 U.S.C. 3596(a) .................................................... passim 18 U.S.C. 3597(a) ......................................................... 5, 19 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. .............................................................. 7 18 U.S.C. 542 (1934) ........................................................... 4, 15 N.Y. Code Crim. Proc. § 507 (36th ed. 1953) ...................... 17 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1014(A) (West 1986) ..................... 5 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 43.14 (West 1979) ............. 5 28 C.F.R.: Section 26.3(a)(1) ............................................................. 12 Section 26.3(a)(4) ..................................................... 4, 5, 30 Miscellaneous: Associated Press, U.S. Arranging To Execute Five, June 17, 1938, https://access.newspaperarchive. com/us/texas/san-antonio/san-antonio-express/ 1938/06-18/page-3/ .............................................................. 15 VI Miscellaneous—Continued: Page William Conklin, Pair Silent to End, N.Y. Times, June 20, 1953, https://search.proquest.com/ hnpnewyorktimes/docview/ 112786383/ D93AAAE153CC4E0DPQ/1?accountid=14740 .............. 17 57 Fed. Reg. 56,536 (Nov. 30, 1992) ....................................... 4 58 Fed. Reg. 4898 (Jan. 19, 1993) ........................................... 4 H.R. Rep. No. 164, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (1937) ............... 3, 4 U.S. Dep’t of Justice: Criminal Resource Manual (Jan. 17, 2020) https://go.usa.gov/xwTXS ........................................... 3 U.S. Marshals Service, History—Historical Federal Executions, https://go.usa.gov/xwTnf ..... 3, 5 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 19-1348 IN RE: FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS’ EXECUTION PROTOCOL CASES JAMES H. ROANE, JR., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. (CAPITAL CASE) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a- 100a) is reported at 955 F.3d 106. The opinion of the district court (Pet. App. 101a-119a) is not reported in the Federal Supplement but is available at 2019 WL 6691814. An earlier opinion of this Court (Pet. App. 124a-126a) is reported at 140 S. Ct. 353. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on April 7, 2020. A petition for rehearing was denied on May 15, 2020 (Pet. App. 127a-129a). The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on June 5, 2020. The juris- diction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). (1) 2 STATEMENT Petitioners
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2014 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. Winter 2014 (As of January 1, 2014) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,070 Race of Defendant: White 1,323 (43.09%) Black 1,284 (41.82%) Latino/Latina 388 (12.64%) Native American 30 (0.98%) Asian 44 (1.43%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,010 (98.05%) Female 60 (1.95%) 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 [see note below], Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: Connecticut, Maryland 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 Fall 2013 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases Decided or to Be Decided in October Term 2012 or 2013 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2013 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 2013 (As of July 1, 2013) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,095 Race of Defendant: White 1,334 (43.10%) Black 1,291 (41.71%) Latino/Latina 391 (12.63%) Native American 33 (1.07%) Asian 45 (1.42%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,034 (98.03%) Female 61 (1.97%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 35 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 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: 18 Alaska, Connecticut [see note below], District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, 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 Spring 2013 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2012 and October Term 2013 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Article I § 10 Ex Post Facto Clause Peugh v.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 4:97-Cr-00243-KGB Document 1401 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 32
    Case 4:97-cr-00243-KGB Document 1401 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 32 FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY CASE ****EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR JULY 13, 2020**** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION DANIEL LEWIS LEE, Movant vs. Criminal Case No. 4:97-cr-00243-KGB-2 CAPITAL CASE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MOTION TO SET OR MODIFY EXECUTION DATE IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC COMES NOW Daniel Lee, by and through counsel, and hereby moves this Court to set an execution date for Mr. Lee for Spring 2021 and/or modify the date selected by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), pursuant to the Court’s firmly rooted authority to do so, and in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 26.3(a). The Court’s scheduling of Mr. Lee’s execution for a date certain in Spring 2021 is appropriate, in light of the worsening public health crisis arising from the global COVID-19 pandemic. A proposed order is attached. Reasons in support of his motion are set forth more fully below. INTRODUCTION This is a motion requesting that the Court set an execution date for Daniel Lee in the Spring of 2021. This is not a motion for a stay nor a request for any form of injunctive relief. It is rather a request based on this Court’s inherent authority to set or modify federal dates of Case 4:97-cr-00243-KGB Document 1401 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 32 execution, a judicial function that is firmly rooted in the historical record and long recognized by all three branches of government.1 This Court should exercise that authority now.
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICA No Return to Execution – the US Death Penalty As a Barrier to Extradition
    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No return to execution – The US death penalty as a barrier to extradition “The datelines alone suggest that something is happening on a widespread scale... The high courts of Canada and South Africa both ruled unanimously this spring that their nations may not extradite even the most wanted criminals to the United States or other nations if they could face capital charges – effectively blocking execution, one case at a time, in an international gesture of judicial noncooperation”.1 Introduction: Out of step with an evolving consensus Since 1990, around 40 countries have abolished the death penalty in law. In the same period more than 600 men and women have been killed in execution chambers in the United States of America (USA). Today, as some 3,700 prisoners await execution in the USA, 109 countries have abandoned capital punishment in law or practice. In other words, a clear majority of countries have concluded that justice is not to be found at the hands of state executioners. The USA’s growing isolation on this fundamental human rights issue has significant consequences for its foreign relations. Nine senior former US diplomats said as much in a brief filed in the United States Supreme Court in June 2001, in which they argued that the execution of people with mental disabilities – one of numerous aspects of the US death penalty which violate specific international safeguards – had become “manifestly inconsistent with evolving international standards of decency”. Such executions, the brief asserted, “strain diplomatic relations with close American allies, provide ammunition to countries with demonstrably worse human rights records, increase US diplomatic isolation, and impair the United States foreign policy interests”.2 In the same month, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution calling into question the USA’s observer status because of its continuing resort to capital punishment.
    [Show full text]
  • (Llding 194 Ceived 54 Swered 45 L~· 198
    (0- UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT memorandum DATE: February 8, 2000 Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 REPLY TO Bill Burlington, Regional Counsel ITNOF: Mid-Atlantic Region SUBJECT: January 2000 Monthly Report TO: Christopher Erlewine, General Counsel A1TN: Linda Dubose, Executive Assistant DMlNISTRATIVEREMEDIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ocr NOV DEC ceived 161 swered 149 RTCLAIMS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (llding 194 ceived 54 swered 45 l~· 198 ,. Month o ~RIVACY JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Hog 30 ived 60 {ered 35 ng S5 20 Working Days 7* les archived ~TION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ocr NOV DEC nding 2S0 es Received 14 orpus 10 3 1 o 3624 Cases Closed· 15 Cases Pending 249 r" eports Completed 17 '--.. ,. ;/Hearings or Trials o ~",,&JementslAwards 1 $ Settlements!Awards $500.0 ($ in Thousands) . 3625 Page 3 :MXR Monthly Report SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS OR ADVERSE DECISIONS: FCI BECKLEY - Maydak v. Olson - This case is an old Ensign Amendment case, coupled with a challenge to staff members rejecting commercially available nude photographs. A favorable R&R was entered in January recommending that the District Court grant our Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court find the inmate's request for an injunction to stop Beckley from rejecting commercially nude photographs was moot, since the inmate is no longer at FCI Beckley. The Magistrate Judge also recommended the Court dismiss the inmate's Ensign Amendment challenge for failure to state a claim, in light of Amatel v.
    [Show full text]
  • Clemency Petition
    BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES In re JUAN RAUL GARZA, Petitioner. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR CLEMENCY AND FOR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OF DEATH TO SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE Greg Wiercioch Bruce W. Gilchrist Texas Defenders Service Audrey J. Anderson 412 Main Street, Suite 1150 Robert M. Blue Houston, Texas 77002 David Newmann (713) 222-7788 HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. 555 13th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1109 (202) 637-5630 Counsel for Petitioner Juan Raul Garza Dated: September 28, 2000 [Picture of Juan to be inserted on this page] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND............................................................................................... 13 A. Procedural History.................................................................................... 13 1. Indictment and Trial ....................................................................... 13 2. Sentencing ....................................................................................... 15 3. Review.............................................................................................. 18 B. Post-Sentencing Developments in Federal Death Penalty Law.............. 19 1. The Federal Death Penalty Act and the Death Penalty Protocols........................................................................................... 19 2. The Justice Department Study ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Federal Prosecutors Really Think: the Puzzle of Statistical Race Disparity Versus Specific Guilt, and the Specter of Timothy Mcveigh
    DePaul Law Review Volume 53 Issue 4 Summer 2004: Symposium - Race to Article 8 Execution What Federal Prosecutors Really Think: The Puzzle of Statistical Race Disparity Versus Specific Guilt, and the Specter of Timothy McVeigh Rory K. Little Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Rory K. Little, What Federal Prosecutors Really Think: The Puzzle of Statistical Race Disparity Versus Specific Guilt, and the Specter of Timothy McVeigh, 53 DePaul L. Rev. 1591 (2004) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol53/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS REALLY THINK: THE PUZZLE OF STATISTICAL RACE DISPARITY VERSUS SPECIFIC GUILT, AND THE SPECTER OF TIMOTHY MCVEIGH Rory K. Little* INTRODUCTION In the face of well-established statistical race disparity in the admin- istration of every capital punishment regime in the United States,1 the continued prosecution of death penalty cases is a puzzle to some. "How can they do that?" think those opposed to capital punishment, of prosecutors in death penalty cases. "Don't they care about race disparity or systemic racial bias? What can they be thinking?" I imagine many people attending DePaul University College of Law's powerful Race to Execution Symposium in October 2003 har- bored this puzzled view. However, let me assure you, the view from the "other side"-of prosecutors handling serious death penalty pros- ecutions-is just as puzzled.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Is a Brief Summary of the History of Capital Punishment, with an Emphasis on Developments in the United States. Th
    HISTORY The following is a brief summary of the history of capital punishment, with an emphasis on developments in the United States. The sources used in this summary are listed at the end to allow more in-depth research. Early Death Penalty Laws The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The death penalty was also part of the Fourteenth Century B.C.'s Hittite Code, the Seventh Century B.C.'s Draconian Code of Athens, which made death the only punishment for all crimes, and the Fifth Century B.C.'s Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets. Death sentences were carried out by such means as crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement. In the Tenth Century A.D., hanging became the usual method of execution in Britain. In the following century, William the Conqueror would not allow persons to be hanged or otherwise executed for any crime, except in times of war. This trend would not last, for in the Sixteenth Century, under the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed. Some common methods of execution at that time were boiling, burning at the stake, hanging, beheading, and drawing and quartering. Executions were carried out for such capital offenses as marrying a Jew, not confessing to a crime, and treason. The number of capital crimes in Britain continued to rise throughout the next two centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    “Something is terribly wrong when a body of law upon which we rely to determine who lives and who dies can no longer, in reality, reasonably and logically be comprehended and applied... Yet this is how cluttered and confusing our nation’s effort to exact the ultimate punishment has become. This cannot be what certain fundamental principles of liberty and due process embodied in our Constitution... are all about... Elusive and complicated distinctions, replete with incomprehensible subtleties of the highest order, must not be the talisman that decides whether one should live or die.”1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Turning a blind eye: Federal complicity in the state-level death penalty 3 Against international standards: The expansion of the federal death penalty 11 The Justice Department report into the federal death penalty 15 Time to stop tinkering with the machinery of death 17 Prosecutorial discretion 19 Racial disparities 23 The question of arbitrariness 26 Other echoes of state-level flaws in the federal death penalty 28 The case of David Ronald Chandler: death by omission? 28 The case of Louis Jones: Death by confusion? 30 Foreign nationals and the federal death penalty: Double standards 33 The federal death penalty: A solution to, or a symptom of, a culture of violence? 34 The scheduled federal execution: Juan Raul Garza 38 Conclusion 39 Recommendations 40 1Dissenting opinion, Flamer v Delaware, US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, October 1995 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Memorandum to President Clinton An appeal for human rights leadership as the first federal execution looms Introduction “Bill Clinton’s quest, we are told, is for a legacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    “Something is terribly wrong when a body of law upon which we rely to determine who lives and who dies can no longer, in reality, reasonably and logically be comprehended and applied... Yet this is how cluttered and confusing our nation’s effort to exact the ultimate punishment has become. This cannot be what certain fundamental principles of liberty and due process embodied in our Constitution... are all about... Elusive and complicated distinctions, replete with incomprehensible subtleties of the highest order, must not be the talisman that decides whether one should live or die.”1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................... 1 Turning a blind eye: Federal complicity in the state-level death penalty .............. 3 Against international standards: The expansion of the federal death penalty .......... 11 The Justice Department report into the federal death penalty ..................... 15 Time to stop tinkering with the machinery of death ............................ 17 Prosecutorial discretion ......................................... 19 Racial disparities .............................................. 23 The question of arbitrariness ...................................... 26 Other echoes of state-level flaws in the federal death penalty ..................... 28 The case of David Ronald Chandler: death by omission? ................. 28 The case of Louis Jones: Death by confusion? ......................... 30 Foreign nationals and the federal death penalty: Double standards ........... 33 The
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. V. Flores and Garza, 63 F. 3D
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS MANUEL FLORES, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS JUAN RAUL GARZA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-7388, No. 93-7662 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 63 F.3d 1342; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24525; 42 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1365 September 1, 1995, Decided SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] As Corrected. Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied December 15, 1995, Reported at: 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 39524. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. D.C. DOCKET NUMBERS CR B-93-009-05, 93-CR-9-1. JUDGE Filemon B. Vela. COUNSEL: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT (93-7388): Richard Hoffman, (Ct. Appt.), Brownsville, TX. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT (93-7662): Douglas M. McNabb, (Crt-Apptd.), Houston, TX. Philip H. Hilder, (Crt-Apptd.), Houston, TX. David Bruck, (Allowed to argue for appellant but not appointed counsel under CJA.), Columbia, SC. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE (93-7388): Gaynelle G. Jones, USA, Paula Offenhauser, AUSA, D.R. Millard, III, AUSA, Houston, TX. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE (93-7662): Gaynelle Griffin Jones, U.S. Atty. Brownsville, TX. Paula C. Offenhauser, AUSA, Houston, TX. JUDGES: Before DAVIS, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges. OPINION BY: DAVIS OPINION: [*1350] DAVIS, Circuit Judge: In this consolidated appeal both Juan Raul Garza and Manuel Flores challenge their convictions and sentences. Juan Raul Garza was convicted of five violations of various drug trafficking laws n1, operating a continuing [*1351] criminal enterprise (CCE) n2, money laundering n3, and three counts of killing in furtherance of a CCE.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 93-7388 UNITED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit ___________________________ No. 93-7388 ___________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS MANUEL FLORES, Defendant-Appellant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ______________________________ No. 93-7662 ______________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS JUAN RAUL GARZA, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ____________________________________________________ (September 1, 1995) Before DAVIS, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges. DAVIS, Circuit Judge: In this consolidated appeal both Juan Raul Garza and Manuel Flores challenge their convictions and sentences. Juan Raul Garza was convicted of five violations of various drug trafficking laws1, operating a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE)2, money laundering3, and three counts of killing in furtherance of a CCE.4 After a punishment hearing, the same jury recommended a death sentence for the three killings. Accordingly, the court sentenced Garza to death for counts 7, 8, and 9, and to concurrent terms of imprisonment for life (counts 1, 2, and 6), 40 years (counts 3 and 5) and 20 years (counts 4 and 10). Garza challenges both his conviction and his sentence. At a separate trial, Manuel Flores was convicted of two counts of killing in furtherance of Garza's CCE5, one count of conspiring to import over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana6, and one count of possession with intent to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of 1Count 1: conspiracy to import more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana into the U.S. from Mexico, 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a)(2) and 960(b)(1)(G); Count 2: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]