DOCSLIB.ORG

(Llding 194 Ceived 54 Swered 45 L~· 198

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Reno. To date, objections have not been filed by inmate Maydak. FeI BECKLEY - Lee v. Olson - This case is an old Ensign Amendment case. A favorable R&R was entered in January recommending the case be removed from the Court's docket in light of Amatel v. Reno. To date, objections have not been filed by inmate Lee. FeI BECKLEY - Edwards v. Olson, et ale - In 1997, inmate Edwards filed a Bivens claim against numerous staff members alleging he was scored a medium inmate to keep him at FCI Beckley to maintain the numb~r of white inmates at the facility. On January 11, 2000, the Magistrate Judge entered an R&R recommending the District Court find that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and that an evidentiary hearing be held to determine whether any Defendant used race as a factor in determining the inmate's custody classification. Objections to the R&R are being drafted. FeI MEMPHIS - Danner v. Reno, et ale - In Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff conceded that her Bivens claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff also conceded that her stated FTCA claims were barred by the exception provisions of the FTCA. The only claim remaining was Plaintiff's Title VII claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. As a result, this case has been transferred to the Labor Law Branch, Central Office. SETTLEMBNTS: FCI Manchester - Stump v. United States - (Administrative Claim)- We have a tentative agreement to settle this administrative, wrongful death claim for a cash payment of $500,000. We have now received DOJ approval and have communicated that to Plaintiff's attorney. 3626 Page 4 MXR Monthly Report UPDATE ON CASES, TRIALS OR BEARI:NGS, ETC. NOTED IN PlUOR REPORTS: FeI ~LAN - Anderson v. Hemingway - This is a Habeas Corpus/TRO case concerning an inmate's return to FDC Milan from a CCC based upon a positive U/A test. The inmate challenged the CDC hearing. A Reply Brief was prepared and submitted to the AUSA and the inmate's BP-I0 was granted for a new hearing. After much discussion in the Regional Office, the inmate was sent back to the CDC pending a rehearing. CIlDIINAL: asp TERRE BAUTE - Special Confinement Unit - The Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project has not yet asked to set up a meeting with Warden Lappin, regarding concerns they raised with the Director. On a related note, we have received a request from inmate Garza's attorney, asking for permission to video tape Garza making a request for Clemency to President Clinton. While we have seen a draft of the Clemency regulations, no execution date has been set for inmate Garza. BOP's execution protocol has been finalized and is ready for DOJ review. FeI BECKLEY - Inmate Michael Kokoski, Reg. No. 02115-061, walked away from FPC Beckley in 1996. He was subsequently arrested in Montana and has now been transported back to Beckley for escape prosecution. Trial was scheduled for February 2, 2000. On February 1, 2000, inmate Kokoski pled guilty to the charge. Sentencing is set for April 2000. SZTOATIONS OF INTEREST, CONTACT WITH FEDERAL BENCH, HAZARDOUS WASH SIDS, ETC.: Fel ASHLAND - Bryan Sublett v. Ashland Employees Club - We were notified this week that the Department denied representation to the Employees Club in this case as the Club was not an agency of the federal government. The employee, Bryan Sublett, filed a case under state tort law, alleging the Employees Club was negligent in serving him alcohol and then permitting him to drive. He claims this was the proximate cause of a car accident which resulted in the loss of a portion of his leg. This occurred in May of 1997 during Correctional Officer Week activities. The Employees Club President requested representation on behalf of the Club. FeI ~LAN - Milan has had a great increase in the filing of BP-9's. The inmates continue to cite the Samples & Todd cases as argument that §922(g) & §924(c) convictions cannot be utilized to deny §3621(e) eligibility. Legal staff at Milan 3627 Page 5 MXR Monthly Report ( anticipate an ever increasing number of habeas corpus challenges. FCI BUTNER - D.C . Contract Monitoring Visit-Greensville, VA - In late January I had an opportunity to visit the Virginia Department of Corrections facility at Greensville, VA, where we have a contract to house 1000 D.C. Department of Corrections inmates. The facility appears very well run. The most common complaint we heard from inmates involved overdue parole and parole revocation hearings. I think we will have to watch this contract very carefully for the first year, as the D.C. Department of Corrections appears to have given these inmates many legitimate complaints . This facility will receive on site monitoring visits every 90 days. FCI PETERSBURG - Inmate Telephone Issue - On February IS', Petersburg was to institute a policy that all but one inmate phone in the housing units wou~ff during work hours (7:30 - 4:30). Inmate ____ contacted the ACLU, who in turn contacted Douglas McSwain, counsel for laintiffs in the ITS settlement. c b5 na. ... u .cn Brooks iss amended guidelines indicating that housing unit phones would remain available to inmates each work day from 10:30 to 12:30. Personnel Issues Staff Leave and Travel 3628 ,.~, .'/---~le 7 " , ("" l",XR Monthly Report New Litigation Cases by Institution and Type Received During the Month of January 2000 - - -- I ALD ASH BEC BUT· CUM ELK LEX MAN MEM MIL MRG PET SEY THA TOT BIV 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 FTCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HC 0 0 I 0 I I 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 OTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOT 0 0 1 I 1 I 7 I 0 0 0 1 0 I 14 • Represents both the FCI and LSCI CM ~ '" ( UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT memorandum DATE: March 9, 2000 Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 RfPLYTO Bill Burlington, Regional Counsel AnN OF: Mid-Atlantic Region SUBJECf: February 2000 Monthly Report ~ Christopher Erlewine, General Counsel ATIW: Linda Dubose, Executive Assistant ~DMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ~eceived 161 131 ~nswered 149 155 TORT CLAIMS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ff Pending 194 198 ·~eceived 54 51 Answered 45 68 (_. Dending 198 179 .... _ . Six Month 0 0 FOI/PRIVACY JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC , Pending 30 55 fI Received 60 101 , Answered 35 93 fI Pending 55 63 fI Over 20 Working Days 7· 3· ·Two files archived LITIGATION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC :ases Pending 250 249 New Cases Received 14 19 Habeas Corpus 10 9 Bivens 3 2 FTeA 1 , Other 0 7 Cases Closed 15 10 Cases Pending 249 258 Lit Reports Completed 17 12 Cases/Hearings or Trials 0 0 Settlements/Awards 1 0 $ Settlements/Awards $500.0 0 Thousands) 3665 Page 2 MXR Monthly Report (_.. Sl:GNIFlCANT DECISl:ONS OR ADVERSE DECISIONS: FCZ MEMPHIS - Sheets v. DOJ, et ale - On November 25, 1998, we were advised that the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in this Title VII cause of action. Specifically, the jury found that the plaintiff had been subjected to disparate treatment ($25,000 compensatory damages); a hostile work environment ($75,000 compensatory damages); and retaliation ($100,000 compensatory damages). The jury also found that the plaintiff was constructively discharged and entitled to back pay in the amount of $116,131. Subsequently, we filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, arguing that the evidence adduced at trial did not support the jury's verdict of any of the claims.
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]
  • 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 .............................................................................
    [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]
  • 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]