DOCSLIB.ORG

Competence to Plead Guilty and Seek the Death Penalty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Competence to Plead Guilty and Seek the Death Penalty Legal Digest mately warranted further inquiry, but did not justify affirmed the decision of the Boone circuit court al- disqualification without substantiation. lowing a competent defendant to enter into a plea Discussion agreement to forgo a jury trial and sentencing and volunteer for the death penalty. The Kentucky Su- The importance of this case involves matters rele- preme Court examined the legal standards for com- vant to autonomy in decision-making. It affirms that petence to waive counsel, to enter a guilty plea, and courts must respect the decisions that individuals to seek a punishment of death. make in choosing who would make their decisions in the event of incapacity and in retaining counsel of Facts of the Case their choice to represent them. Individual wishes are In August 2002, Marco Allen Chapman entered generally upheld as long as there is no suspicion of the home of Carolyn Marksberry and stabbed her lack of capacity. However, when a named conserva- and her three young children, resulting in the death tor or counsel has an apparent personal interest in of two of the children. Mr. Chapman told authorities controlling the incapacitated individual’s assets, such that he “bound Ms. Marksberry with a vacuum conflicts of interest may be considered in a legal chal- cleaner chord and gagged her with duct tape.” He lenge to the ability of a conservator, guardian, or then stabbed her and the children. When arrested, attorney to act in the best interests of the individual, Mr. Chapman asked a policeman to “do me a favor especially when that individual’s competence is in and put a bullet in my forehead.” The trial court question. In this case, the court also affirmed the ordered the first of three competency evaluations at importance of clearly defined prioritization of parties the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center who may be in line to become a conservator of an (KCPC) during pretrial proceedings. Dr. Steven incapacitated individual. Although trial courts retain Free, a psychologist at KCPC, testified that, despite the discretion to bypass individuals with priority if having a history of mental health-related problems, necessary, this decision again must be based on a Mr. Chapman was competent to stand trial. “firm factual foundation,” and not merely suspicions Mr. Chapman wrote the trial court asking to “dis- of conflict of interest. This case reflects the legal sys- miss his attorneys, waive a jury trial and sentencing, tem’s desire to ensure appropriate legal representa- plead guilty to all charges, and be sentenced to tion and transfer of decision-making authority. death,” prompting a second competency evaluation. Dr. Free believed that Mr. Chapman was competent but thought that his legal choices might change with treatment. The trial court ordered the defendant to Competence to Plead Guilty KCPC for 30 days of treatment and evaluation. A and Seek the Death Penalty few weeks later, in a third competency hearing, Dr. Free found Mr. Chapman competent. The trial court Casey Helmkamp, MD Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry ruled that he was competent to “fire his attorneys, to plead guilty, and to seek death.” Over objections Hal S. Wortzel, MD from Mr. Chapman and his former attorneys, the Forensic Psychiatry Faculty trial court appointed the same lawyers as standby Richard Martinez, MD, MH counsel. At sentencing, the trial court acknowledged Director, Forensics Program receiving a psychological report delivered by standby University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences counsel. It had considered psychological evidence in Center determining competency on all three occasions, but Denver Health Medical Center did not consider it as mitigating evidence, citing Mr. Denver, CO Chapman’s choice not to present mitigating evi- A Competent Defendant May Enter Into a dence. He was sentenced to death. Plea Agreement to Forgo a Jury Trial and The Department of Public Advocacy filed an ap- Sentencing and Volunteer for the peal on Mr. Chapman’s behalf raising numerous Death Penalty claims: (1) the death penalty is unconstitutional; (2) In Chapman v. Commonwealth, 2007 Ky. LEXIS lethal injection and electrocution violate the Eighth 178 (Ky. 2007), the Supreme Court of Kentucky Amendment; (3) Kentucky’s method of proportion- Volume 36, Number 3, 2008 409 Legal Digest ality review of death sentences is unconstitutional; ceedings against one or to participate rationally in (4) his death sentence was arbitrary and dispropor- one’s own defense.” The United States Supreme tionate; (5) the trial court erred by requiring the same Court has rejected the notion that competence to attorneys he had already fired to serve as standby plead guilty or to waive the right to counsel should be counsel; (6) the trial court erred in refusing to con- held to a higher standard than competency to stand sider mitigating evidence; (7) the trial court should trial (Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 398 (1993)). have used a more stringent competency standard Since Mr. Chapman was found competent under given his mental health and abuse history; and (8) he Kentucky law, he was competent to plead guilty and should not be permitted to commit “suicide by seek the death penalty. The court then considered court.” the question of whether a defendant may plead guilty to a capital offense to seek the death penalty: “There Ruling and Reasoning is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a per- The Kentucky Supreme Court cited prior rulings son deciding to take responsibility for his or her crim- concluding that Kentucky’s death penalty statute is inal misconduct without having first undergone a constitutional (Thompson v. Commonwealth, 147 full-blown trial.” The court argued that adhering to a S.W.3d 22, 55 (Ky. 2004)). Similarly, repeated rul- defendant’s choice honors personal dignity and con- ings have held that neither lethal injection nor elec- cluded that safeguards such as “ensuring that the de- trocution violate the Eighth Amendment (Wheeler v. fendant is competent, that a factual basis exists to Commonwealth, 121 S.W.3d 173, 186 (Ky. 2003)). support the imposition of the death penalty, and our The court upheld their process for proportionality proportionality review—amply protect the state’s in- review as constitutional (Sanders v. Commonwealth, terests.” The court noted that a trial court is not 801 S.W.2d 665, 683 (Ky. 1990)). After conducting obligated to accept plea agreements, regardless of the required proportionality review (Ky. Rev. Stat. whether the plea calls for the death penalty. In re- Ann. § 532.075(3) (2007)), the court stated that Mr. viewing the trial court’s acceptance of Mr. Chap- Chapman’s death sentence was not disproportionate. man’s plea, it upheld the death sentence because it He had “brutally stabbed two innocent children to was based on appropriateness for the crimes, and not death,” and the court found that ample evidence met on the defendant’s wishes or plea agreement. Because the statutory aggravating factors. of the careful scrutiny required in accepting such a The court considered the matter of a pro se defen- plea, the court found that it is not possible for a dant’s having standby counsel and determined that defendant to use capital punishment to commit “sui- the trial court had a right to appoint standby counsel cide by court.” despite his objections (Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000)) and found no error Discussion in appointing the same lawyers. The court next con- The United States Supreme Court has established sidered the question of mitigating evidence. The trial that a defendant may not be tried unless competent court had refused to consider a psychological report (Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966)), with the delivered before sentencing as mitigating evidence, “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer because it was improperly submitted without the ap- with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” proval of the defendant. The Kentucky Supreme and “a rational as well as a factual understanding of Court supported the trial court’s ruling that once a the proceedings against him” (Dusky v. United States, defendant is validly proceeding pro se, standby coun- 362 U.S. 402 (1960)). In Godinez v. Moran, the U.S. sel may not “override that pro se defendant’s wishes as Supreme Court ruled that there is no difference in to what evidence, if any, will be presented on behalf the competency standard at any point in a trial. The of the defense.” Supreme Court of Kentucky closely followed this Next came the question of whether Mr. Chapman ruling in their decision about the standard of com- was competent to plead guilty and seek execution. petency Mr. Chapman required when entering a plea Under Kentucky law (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § of guilty and waiving his right to counsel. 504.060(4) (2005)), incompetent to stand trial Although Godinez v. Moran has been determina- means that “[the defendant lacks the] capacity to tive in the area of competency standards for various appreciate the nature and consequences of the pro- rights, the question of having additional safeguards 410 The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Legal Digest in capital cases is interesting. Should there be greater alty. The presentation of mitigating evidence may be protections for waivers when the defendant’s life is viewed as more than just the defendant’s optional on the line? In the Chapman appeal, it was argued right, but a vital safeguard in protecting the state’s that Kentucky should adopt the Arkansas statute that interest in assuring that all death sentences are ap- holds that a defendant charged with capital murder is plied in a consistent, nonarbitrary, and just manner. prohibited from: .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Death Penalty Executions in Ky
    Death Penalty Executions In Ky Audiovisual and blue-blooded Amery retreats her propriety whispers nuttily or larrups transitorily, is Jennings surrounded? Which Quincy anyplatinized axis. so thoroughgoingly that Rollin flag her sluggard? Englebart remains daintiest after Hagen circumfused parlando or benames They trade also result from them general reluctance by States to mold large numbers of defendants to impossible, even after a multiply of recruit is imposed. Consequently, Kentucky, once again, put itself as a flock without capital punishment. There is much less, waste, and refrain in blue capital process. Madison suffered multiple severe strokes that caused him would damage, vascular dementia, and retrograde amnesia. Fork Licking River at Cynthiana affecting Harrison County. Notifications can be turned off those in the browser settings. He deserves to die. If not court denies the petition, the defendant appeals to the Sixth Circuit lack of Appeals, which is based in Cincinnati, Ohio and hears cases in panels of three judges. Prior to renew to Butterfield, he had jumped off a severe but is car swerved before leaving was hit. Edward Lee Harper, Jr. The drugs were sodium thiopental to hug him unconscious, pancuronium bromide to surgery his breathing by paralyzing his muscles, and then potassium chloride to imagine his heart. Paperwork not been filed to cringe the branch penalty increase the man accused of murder in state death by an Owensboro woman. The Catholic conference alert after that Shallenberger later admitted duping Lewis into believing he was true love against her lease that mountain would take the fin from life insurance policies and run off together.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Docile Bodies" Or Rebellious Spirits?: Issues of Time and Power in the Waiver and Withdrawal of Death Penalty Appeals
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 43 Number 2 Winter 2009 pp.459-558 Winter 2009 "Docile Bodies" or Rebellious Spirits?: Issues of Time and Power in the Waiver and Withdrawal of Death Penalty Appeals Avi Brisman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Avi Brisman, "Docile Bodies" or Rebellious Spirits?: Issues of Time and Power in the Waiver and Withdrawal of Death Penalty Appeals, 43 Val. U. L. Rev. 459 (2009). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol43/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Brisman: "Docile Bodies" or Rebellious Spirits?: Issues of Time and Power Articles “DOCILE BODIES” OR REBELLIOUS SPIRITS?: ISSUES OF TIME AND POWER IN THE WAIVER AND WITHDRAWAL OF DEATH PENALTY APPEALS Avi Brisman∗ I. INTRODUCTION This past term, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Baze v. Rees regarding the use of the tri-chemical “cocktail” used to execute inmates on death row—sodium thiopental (also known as sodium pentothal, an ultra-short acting barbiturate to render the individual unconscious), pancuronium bromide (also known as Pavulon, which causes muscle paralysis), and potassium chloride (to stop the heart).1 In Baze, the petitioners neither challenged the constitutionality of the use of lethal injection, in particular, nor the penalty of capital punishment, as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemplating Cruel and Unusual: a Critical Analysis of Baze V. Rees In
    American University Law Review Volume 58 | Issue 3 Article 3 2009 Contemplating Cruel and Unusual: A Critical Analysis of Baze v. Rees in the Context of the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment Proportionality Jurisprudence Katie Roth Heilman The American University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Heilman, Katie Roth. “Contemplating Cruel and Unusual: A Critical Analysis of Baze v. Rees in the Context of the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment Proportionality Jurisprudence.” American University Law Review 58, no. 3 (February 2009): 633-663. This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Contemplating Cruel and Unusual: A Critical Analysis of Baze v. Rees in the Context of the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment Proportionality Jurisprudence Abstract This Comment argues that, while the Court’s modern Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has gradually reduced the circumstances under which the death penalty may be imposed, this trend is inconsistent with the Court’s unwillingness to critically examine the specific procedures states use to execute, even in the face of growing concerns over the humaneness of such procedures. Part I gives a historic overview of the Court’s limited method-of-execution jurisprudence, followed by a review of the Court’s recent line of rulings on challenges to the death penalty’s proportionality.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky Executes First Inmate in 9 Years
    Kentucky executes first inmate in 9 years By BRETT BARROUQUERE Associated Press Writer EDDYVILLE, Ky. -- A Kentucky inmate who resisted all appeals to stop his execution was put to death Friday for murdering two young children. In the state's first execution in nine years, Marco Allen Chapman was given a lethal injection at the Kentucky State Penitentiary. He was pronounced dead at 7:34 p.m. CST. The 37-year-old pleaded guilty in 2004 to killing 7-year-old Chelbi Sharon and 6-year-old Cody Sharon in their northern Kentucky home in an attack that wounded their mother and another child. Chapman asked to be executed and fought for the right to fire his attorneys to clear the way. "I'm sorry. I'm sorry," Chapman said to witnesses before his execution. He lifted his head off the gurney, looked into the victim's witness room and spoke. "I just want you to know that I'm not a monster, but I committed a monstrous, evil act," Chapman said. "This is the man I am, willing to give his life." His last words were "yes, sir," when the warden asked him if he was ready to proceed. Carolyn Marksberry, who survived Chapman's attack in 2002 along with her daughter Courtney, said in a statement that the execution may allow her two slain children to "truly rest in peace." "I believe the tears shed today should be for the victims of this crime, not Marco Chapman," Marksberry said in the statement. "Marco Chapman committed the crimes, accepted responsibility for those crimes and then decided his own fate." Warden Tom Simpson read a lengthy statement on Chapman's behalf in which the condemned man apologized repeatedly for killing the children and attacking the family.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapman V. Commonwealth: Death Row Volunteers, Competency, and “Suicide by Court”
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Saint Louis University School of Law Research: Scholarship Commons Saint Louis University Law Journal Volume 53 Number 4 Still Crazy After All These Years: Is Regulating Physician Practice an Exercise in Article 15 Futility? (Summer 2009) 2009 Chapman v. Commonwealth: Death Row Volunteers, Competency, and “Suicide by Court” Stephen Skaff Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen Skaff, Chapman v. Commonwealth: Death Row Volunteers, Competency, and “Suicide by Court”, 53 St. Louis U. L.J. (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol53/iss4/15 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Saint Louis University Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact Susie Lee. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPMAN v. COMMONWEALTH: DEATH ROW VOLUNTEERS, COMPETENCY, AND “SUICIDE BY COURT” INTRODUCTION On August 23, 2002 Marco Allen Chapman murdered seven-year-old Chelbi Sharon and her six-year-old brother, Cody.1 Chapman left for dead the children’s ten-year-old sister, Courtney, and their mother, Carolyn Marksberry, after stabbing each multiple times.2 Chapman was executed by lethal injection on November 21, 2008.3 However, no jury convicted him of the murders or sentenced him to death. Rather, Chapman pleaded guilty to the murders,
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky Murders 1962 - 2008
    Kentucky murders 1962 - 2008. James Kelly Moss, 1962 Moss was a career criminal, who served his first prison term in 1933, at age 19, having been convicted of trying to steal bags of coffee and car tires from an L&N Railroad boxcar. Some eight months later he and two other inmates were unloading a truck outside the prison walls at Eddyville when they overpowered their guard and ran. They were quickly recaptured. Between 1950 and 1953 he was arrested ten more times and Circuit Judge Faust Simpson ordered him to leave Henderson county in January 1954, after he was involved in a disturbance at his mother’s house and threatened police with a knife. Later in 1954 he was charged with a robbery in Webster County for which he was sent to prison, being released on Sept. 22, 1957. Six weeks later Moss would commit the murder that sent him to the electric chair. On November 6, 1957 he turned up in a taxi, drunk, at the home of his 74 year old stepfather, Charles Abbott, at about 8:30 p.m. Moss hammered on the door and demanded the 35c taxi fare from Abbott. At some point, Moss got into the house where he beat the old man who, at just 110 pounds, was half his size. The injuries were so horrendous that Abbott was barely recognizable. His body was discovered by police around 10 p.m. when his wife, Edna, found the door locked on her return from church. Moss was the only suspect and he was arrested the next day.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisoner-Assisted Homicide – More ‘Volunteer’ Executions Loom
    Public amnesty international UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Prisoner-assisted homicide – more ‘volunteer’ executions loom 17 May 2007 AI Index: AMR 51/087/2007 When a capital defendant seeks to circumvent procedures necessary to ensure the propriety of his conviction and sentence, he does not ask the State to permit him to take his own life. Rather, he invites the State to violate two of the most basic norms of a civilized society – that the State’s penal authority be invoked only where necessary to serve the ends of justice, not the ends of a particular individual, and that punishment be imposed only where the State has adequate assurance that the punishment is justified . United States Supreme Court Justice, 1990 1 Robert Comer, Christopher Newton and Elijah Page have something in common, aside from being on death row in the USA. Each of these three men is assisting their government in its efforts to kill them. They have given up their appeals and are “volunteering” for execution. Robert Comer is scheduled for execution in Arizona on 22 May 2007, Christopher Newton in Ohio on 23 May, and in the week of 9 July Elijah Page is due to become the first person to be put to death in South Dakota since 1947. In addition, on 4 May 2007, the Tennessee Attorney General requested an execution date for Daryl Holton, a former soldier with a history of depression, who has effectively waived his appeals and has been found competent to do so. The execution of another “volunteer”, Carey Dean Moore, due to be carried out in Nebraska on 8 May 2007, was stopped by the state Supreme Court on 2 May in view of concerns – not raised by Moore – about Nebraska’s use of the electric chair.
    [Show full text]
  • Time for Abolition Is NOW
    The death penalty in Kentucky: Time for Abolition is NOW By Allen Ault wonder that a 2012 study conducted on the of view on other matters. Marc Hyden of the wellbeing of homicide survivors found that national group Conservatives Concerned Unjust. Unfair. Costly. Dehumanizing. those who lived in a state where the ultimate about the Death Penalty shares information penalty was life without parole fared much in an accompanying article about the recent These concerns reflect the reality of the better than those with the death penalty?” he inaugural meeting of that organization in administration of the death penalty. As such, writes. northern Kentucky. they lead to the same inevitable conclusion: It is time to abolish capital punishment in The absence of change in Kentucky’s death “For pro-life conservatives who subscribe Kentucky. penalty law also means the state continues to the notion that the government shouldn’t to incur costs that exceed the resources that wrongly execute Americans and innocent It has been four years since an American would be required if life without parole were lives should be safeguarded, the death pen- Bar Association-sponsored assessment of the the maximum penalty possible. alty has become an untenable program. … use of the death penalty in Kentucky resulted Kentucky’s own track record is tainted by in a report that revealed serious problems re- An article elsewhere on these pages by mistakes. …The death penalty in Kentucky lated to fairness and accuracy. These included state Rep. David Floyd provides more detail. and elsewhere poses an undeniable hazard to an error rate of more than 60 percent, mean- “It’s counterintuitive, but taxpayers spend innocent life.” ing a majority of death sentences were over- far more on our system of capital punishment turned on appeal; caseloads far exceeding the than we would if the death penalty were not Finally, on a personal note, my opposition national average for public defenders han- an option.
    [Show full text]