TOT AL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,565 Race of Defendant: 1 White 1,657 ( 46.48%) Black 1.5 16 ( 42.53 %) Latino/Latina 299 ( 8.39%) Native American 48 ( 1.35%) Asian 28 ( .79%) Un.known at this issue 17 ( .48%) Gender: Male 3,515 (98.60%) Female 50,,-( 1.40%) Juveniles: i\lale 65 ( 1.82%) 0JSPOSITIONS SJNCE JA:'\l'ARY 1. I 973: [:-;ecutions: 530 . uicides : 5-1 Commu tations: 80 11m:ludmi,:t /w,,: h~ ths· <.io, cmor of Texas rcsuhing from fa, orablc coun decision s) Died of natural causes or killed while under death sentence: 131 Con, ictions 1 entences re,·ersed 16-12 .Jl'RISDICTJO N WITH CA PITAL Pl'~ISHMENT STATUTES : 40 IL ndcrlincd jurisdictions ha, c 1nt111c, hut no sentences imposed) t\labama. Arizona. Arkansas. Calitorn1::i. Colorado. Connecticut. Delaware. Florida. Georgia. Idaho. lllinoi~. Indiana. Kansa~. Kcmucl-.:,.Louisiana. Maryland. Mississippi. Missouri. Montana. ~chra~l-.a.~e\'ada. 'e" Hamp,h1n.:. :-Sc,, Jcr c>. ·ev. Mexico. e\,\ York. North Carolina. Ohio, 01-.lnhoma. Oregon. Penn : I, an1;i. ~outh l arolinn. South Dakota. Tennessee , Texas. Utah. \ "1rg1111a. Washington. Wyoming. L S Gm ernment. U.S. Military . ,Jl'RISDI CT IOl\S \\ 'ITHOl" T CAPITAL P ISHM E 'T STATUTES : 13 :\la ~l-.a. District of Columbia. Ha,,ai i. lo,,a . Maine. Massachusetts, Michigan. Minnesota, \' onh Dal-.ota. Rhode b land. \ 'crmont. West Virginia. Wisconsin . Dca1hRo,1 U.S.A. Page I In the United States Supreme Court October Tenn -- 1998 Pending Capital, Habeas & Race Cases Strickler v. Greene, No. 98-5864 (State suppression of exculpatory material in state capital case) decision below unreported, 149 F.3d 1170 (Table)(4th Cir. 1998) Questions Presented : (1) Whether the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 ( 1963), and its progeny (2) If so, whether the State's nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence and the State's representation that its open file contained all Brady material establishes the requisite ·cause' for failing to raise a Brady claim in state proceedings (3)Whether petitioner was prejudiced by non-disclosure . Jones v. United States, No. 97-9361 (Federal Death Penalty sentencing procedures) decision below. 132 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1998) Questions Presented: (I) Whether petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that the jury's failure to agree on a sentencing recommendation automatically would result in a court-imposed sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release. (2) Whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury instructions led the jury to believe that deadlock on the penalty recommendation would automatically result in a court-imposed sentence less severe than It fe Imprisonment. ( 3) Whether the court of appeals correctly held that the submission of in\'al1d non-statutory aggravating factors was hannless bevond a reasonable doubt. Lill, · ,. \'irginia. 1'\o.98-5881 (Confrontalton Clausetadmission of statement against penal interest) dec1s1onbelow 499 S.E.2d 522 (\ 'a. 1998) Questions Presented : ( 1) Whether the adm1ss1oninto evidence of a custodial confession by an alleged accomplice." h1ch confession inculpates a criminal defendant in a capital murder case. consistently minin111csth e dcclarant's role and shifts blame to others, offered under a state excepuon to the hearsay rule as a declaration against interest of an una,·ailable ,,·1tness because the declarant refused to testify under the Fifth Amendment, ,·1olates the Confrontatton Clause of the Sixth Amendment?; (2) Whether there is a finnly rooted exception to the hearsay rule which would permit the admission into evidence of a custodial confession by an alleged accomplice. which confession inculpates a criminal defendant in a capital murder case. consistently minimizes the declarant's role and shifts blame onto others. without \'iolaung the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment? C3l In assessing the rellabilit~ of the hearsay statements of an unavailable declarant, offered as a declaration against interest. whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments proh1b1tconsideration of corroborating evidence other than the circumstances surround111gthe making of the statement? Death Ro11 U.S.A Pagt: 2 O'Sullivan v. Boerckel , No. 97-2048 (Exhaustion of state remedies) decision below 135 F.3d 1194 (7th Cir. 1998) Question Presented: May an individual who is in custody pursuant to a state crimina l conviction pursue claims in a federal habeas petition if those claims were not raised on direct appeal in a petition for discretionary review to the state's highest court? Slack v. McDaniel, No. 98-6322 (Exhaustion/Successive claim s) decision below -- unreported denial of certificate of appealability Question Presented: If a person 's petition for habeas corpus under 28 USC §2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exha usts his state remedies and refile s the §2254 petition, are claims included within the petition that were not included within the initial §2254 filing "second or sucessive" habeas applications ? Smith v. Robbins, No. 97-1037 (Right to counsel on appeal & Anders procedure) decision below , 152 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 1997) Questions Presented: ( 1) Did Ninth Circuit err in finding that Ca lifornia 's no-merit brief procedure. in which appellate counsel who has found no non -frivilous issues remains available to brief any issues appellate court might identify, violates Sixth Amendment Anders righ t to effec tive assistance of co unsel on appeal? (2) Did Nint h Circuit err when it ruled that asse rted Anders vio lation required new appeal , without testing claimed Sixth Amendmen t error under Strickland v. Washington ? (3) Did Ninth Circuit violate rule announced in Teague v. Lane, which prohibits retroac tive app lication of new rule on co llateral review. when it invalida ted California's wel l-settled, good-faith interp retation of federal law? Portuondo v. Agard, No. 98-1170 (Teague v. Lan e; Comments on Silence)(lower court opinion at 64 Cr .L. 123 modifying 117 F.3d 696 (2nd Cir. 1998) Question Presented : Did Second Circuit err in extending this Court's decision in Griffin v. Califon11a,which prohibited prosecutor 's comment on defendant's right to remain silent , to prosecutor's comments on testifyi ng defendant's presencd in courtroom during testimon y of other witnesses ? Fiore v. \Vhit e, No. 98-942 (Due proces s. retroactivity)(lower court opinion 149 F.3d 221 (3rd Ci r. 1998) Questions Presented : ( 1) Did state flout due process and evade federal habeas corpus relief for incontestab ly innocent prisoner by claiming that appeliate decision constituted "new law" regarding crime for which. if subsequent state ruling were app lied, state did not and could not prove key element at trial; (2) Should federal habeas relief be extended to protect federal constitutional rights in case in which state refuses to retroactively apply decision that was based on already existing clear language of statute ? Death Row U.S.A. Page3 Williams v. Tavlor, No. 98-8384 (Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; construction of §2254(d)) Questions Presented: ( l) Where both the feeral district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petition to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington , did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that : · a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the "windfall " analyusis articulated in Lockhard v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no "windfall" ; and b. the petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase , all twelve jurors would have voted for life inprisonrnent , even where state law would have mandated a lief sentence if only one juror had voted for life inprisonrnent (2) Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that , under 28 USC §22 54(d)(l ), a state habeas court 's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be "contrary to" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it 8is in "square conflict" with a decision of thsi Court that is "controlling as to law and fact"? (3) Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that. under 28 USC §2254( d)( l ), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutiona lclaim cannot involve "an unreasonable application of' clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or applicatio of relevant precedent that "reasonable jurists would fill agree is unreasonable ? Chicago. Ill., .. l\1orales, No. 97-1121 (Due Proces s/Loitering/Standing While Black) decision below 687 N.E .2d 53 (111.1997) Questions Presented : (I) Is loitering ordinance authorizing arrest of persons who have disobeyed police order to mo\'e on. gt\'en when police officer has reasonable cause to believe that group of loiterers contains member of criminal street gang , impermissibly \'ague in \'iolation of due process guarantees? (2) Despite legislative findings about deletenou s effects of loitering by criminal street gangs. does ordinance that requires group of loiterers containing cnminal street gang members to obey police order to move on vtolate substantive due process guarantees ? Death Row U.S.A . Page4 April 1, 1999 Total numb er of execu tions since the 1976 reinsta tement of capital punishment 530 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 I 0 2 0 I 2 5 21 18 18 25 11 16 23 14 31 38 31 56 45 74 68 30 Gender Gender of defendants executed Gender of victims total number 530 total number 715 Fema le 3 .57% ) Female 315 (44 .