DOCSLIB.ORG

TOT AL NUMBER of DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN to LDF: White

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TOT AL NUMBER of DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN to LDF: White 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 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alumni to Be Recognized at 134Th Founders Day Banquet Washington University Will Honor Six John E
    Washington University School of Medicine Digital Commons@Becker Washington University Record Washington University Publications 11-5-1987 Washington University Record, November 5, 1987 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record Recommended Citation "Washington University Record, November 5, 1987" (1987). Washington University Record. Book 426. http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record/426 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington University Publications at Digital Commons@Becker. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Record by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Becker. For more information, please contact [email protected]. f\ ^/,5/^/vc/av LJ ^ IvaO'Ty Medical Library nuv Tn^eya/T ARCHIVES gWashir^ton WASHINGTON • UNIVERSITY- IN ■ ST-LOUIS Vol. 12 No. 11/Nov. 5, 1987 Alumni to be recognized at 134th Founders Day banquet Washington University will honor six John E. Gilster graduated from members of its alumni at its 134th the School of Dental Medicine in anniversary Founders Day Banquet 1944. In 1950 he joined the faculty Saturday, Nov. 14, at the Adam's of Washington University and rose to Mark Hotel. the rank of professor and chairman Ted Koppel, ABC News anchor- of the Department of Pedodontics. man, will be principal speaker. Four He is now a professor emeritus and members of the University's faculty is one of the school's most active also will be honored that night for alumni. He is a past member of the excellence in teaching. Stanley L. Alumni Board of Governors, and Lopata, an alumnus and emeritus served as its vice-chairman in 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri's Death Penalty in 2017: the Year in Review
    Missourians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty 6320 Brookside Plaza, Suite 185; Kansas City, MO 64113 816-931-4177 www.madpmo.org Missouri’s Death Penalty in 2017: The Year in Review A year-end compilation of death penalty data for the state of Missouri. Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 2 II. Missouri Death Sentences in 2017 3 New Death Sentences 3 Unconstitutionality of Judicial Override 3 Non-Death Outcomes: Jury Rejections 4 Non-Death Outcomes: Pleas for Life Without Parole 5 III. Missouri Executions 7 Executions in Missouri and Nationally 7 Missouri’s Executed in 2017 - Mark Christeson 8 Missouri Executions by County - a Death Belt 9 Regional Similarity of Executions and Past Lynching Behaviors 10 Stays of Execution and Dates Withdrawn 12 IV. Current Death Row 13 Current Death Row by County and Demographics 13 On Death Row But Unfit for Execution 15 Granted Stay of Execution 15 Removed from Death Row - Not By Execution 16 V. Missouri’s Death Penalty in 2018 17 Pending Missouri Executions and Malpractice Concerns 17 Recent Botched Executions in Other States 17 Pending Capital Cases 18 VI. Table 1 - Missouri’s Current Death Row, 2017 19 VII. Table 2 - Missouri’s Executed 21 VIII. MADP Representatives 25 1 I. Executive Summary Missourians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (MADP) - a statewide organization based in Kansas City, Missouri - publishes this annual report to inform fellow citizens and elected officials about developments and related issues associated with the state’s death penalty in 2017 and recent years. This report includes information about the following death penalty developments in the state of Missouri: ● Nationally, executions and death sentences remained near historically low levels in 2017, the second fewest since 1991.
    [Show full text]
  • Habeas Corpus Committee
    5~-~ ~ • +v ~~~~I- MEMORANDUM TO: Justice Powell May 3, 1990 FROM: Hew RE: House Habeas Hearing ( ~d---c,, 2- 4 ) Virginia Sloan of Kastenmeier's staff called ~M,g&AIJ8a;, ~ to confirm that the hearing will take place on May 24, 1990. You should note that this is not a hearing of the ~ House Judiciary Committee. It is a hearing of Rep. Kasten- meier's Courts, Intellectual Property, and Administration of Justice Subcommittee. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m . Unlike the Senate hearing, where you spoke first as a single witness, the House subcommittee wants you to appear as one • member of a panel, including Judge Roney and perhaps another member of the Ad Hoc Committee. R.H.P . • MAJOIUTY MIMIW -WfY Mt t,111111 ) JA(l IAOOlt, TtV.I, CIWkMAN HAMILTON PIIH. JII.. "tw YOM FIRST CONGRESS CAlll.01 J. MOO~HIAD, c;A~IJOjUolA IIOIUT W. kAtTENMIEllll. WlfCOHtlN ONI ~UNDREO IIINIIY J. N'IDl, 11.LINOII DON lDWAIIOI, CAl,lfQ_. P. JAMIi HNllM.IIINNll. .Ill. WIICONI IN JOHN CON'l'llll, JII., MICM!OAN l1U lotcCOLlUM. fLOIUOA IIOMANO ~ M.UIOl.l UNfUCltY IIO!ICH \IW . OIIIAI, ,aNNl'tl.VA>IIA Ml.LIAW J. IIUG/4H. NtW JIW'I' MICWL D1W1Nt, ~10 MIKI l'l'NM OICI.AIIOMA ~onBrt.ss of tht tinittd £,tatts WIUIAM I. DANNIMIEYII\ CAulOIUIIA PATIIICIA ICHIIOIDIII. COlOMOO MOWl\1111 COIi.i, NORTM CAIIOI.INA !MN GLICKMAN. UIII.AI D. ,MNCM 11.AuGNlll. .ia.. WIOl!j lJ. IAIICl'I' f!W<II. ~IAC..UIITTI ttout or Rq,rumtati\lu 1.AMJ.111. IMITII.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2006 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services, Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Summer 2006 (As of July 1, 2006) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,366 Race of Defendant: White 1,525 (45.31%) Black 1,407 (41.80%) Latino/Latina 356 (10.58%) Native American 38 ( 1.13%) Asian 39 ( 1.16%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,309 (98.31%) Female 57 ( 1.69%) Juveniles:* Male 5 ( .15%) (* NOTE: On March 1, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Roper v. Simmons that it is unconstitutional to execute a person for a crime committed when that person was under the age of 18. Only juveniles whose death sentences were vacated by court order or other official action before July 1, 2006 have been removed from the state rosters. The others remain with their names in brackets.) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 40 (Underlined jurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 13 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
    [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]