DOCSLIB.ORG

Death Row U.S.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Death Row U.S.A DEATH ROW U.S.A. SPRING 2003 (As of April 1, 2003) 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. TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,525 Race of Defendant: White 1,610 (45.67%) Black 1,490 (42.27%) Latino/Latina 344 ( 9.76%) Native American 39 ( 1.11%) Asian 41 ( 1.16%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,477 (98.64%) Female 48 ( 1.36%) Juveniles: Male 82 ( 2.33%) 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. Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Winter 2003 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for October Term 2002 and Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2003 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Overton v. Bazzetta, No. 02-0094 (Prisoners’ rights to non-contact visitation) (decision below 286 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2002)) Questions Presented: (1) Whether prisoners have a right to non-contact visitation protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments. (2) Whether the restrictions on non-contact prison visitation imposed by the Michigan Department of Corrections are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Virginia v. Black, No. 01-1107 (Cross-burning prosecution) (decision below 553 S.E.2d 738 (Va. 2002)) Question Presented: Does Virginia statute that bans cross-burning with intent to intimidate violate First Amendment, even though statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious, or other content-focused category? Decision: The First Amendment permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. Virginia may choose to regulate this subset of intimidating messages in light of cross burning's long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. The case was remanded for consideration of an instruction given to the jury on prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Fourth Amendment Arizona v. Grant, No. 02-1019 (Search of vehicle) (decision below 43 P.3d 188 (2d DCA Az. 2003)) Question Presented: When police arrest the recent occupant of a vehicle outside the vehicle, are they precluded from searching the vehicle pursuant to New York v. Belton unless the arrestee was actually or constructively aware of the police before getting out of the vehicle? Maryland v. Pringle, No. 02-0809 (Arrest of car occupants) (decision below unreported (Md. Ct. App. 2002)) Question Presented: Where drugs and a roll of cash are found in the passenger compartment of a car with multiple occupants, and all deny ownership, does the 4th Amendment prohibit a police officer from arresting the occupants of the car? United States v. Banks, No. 02-473 (Knock and announce search) (decision below 282 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2003)) Questions Presented: Did law enforcement officers executing warrant to search for illegal drugs violate Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered small apartment in middle of afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence? Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 Fifth Amendment Price v. Vincent, No. 02-524 (Double jeopardy) (decision below 292 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2002)) Questions Presented: (2) Was habeas petitioner twice placed in jeopardy by action of trial court in first granting motion for directed verdict on issue of first-degree murder and shortly thereafter withdrawing its grant, when both initial decision and its recall occurred out of presence of jury? (3) Should this Court grant certiorari to resolve split of opinion within federal courts of appeals and within Sixth Circuit and state courts on question of whether double jeopardy principles were violated in factually similar situations? Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, No. 01-7574 (Double jeopardy / due process; Death sentence after imposition of life sentence) (decision below 763 A.2d 359 (Pa. 2000)) Questions Presented: (1) Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bar imposition of the death penalty upon reconviction after an initial conviction, set aside on appeal, in which the trial court imposed a statutorily mandated life sentence when the capital sentencing jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict? (2) Is a capital defendant’s life and liberty interest in the imposition of a life sentence by operation of state law, following a capital sentencing hearing in which the sentencing jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict, violated when his first conviction is later overturned and the state seeks and obtains a death sentence on retrial? Decision: Neither the double-jeopardy bar nor the right to due process protect petitioner against Pennsylvania's seeking and obtaining the death penalty on retrial. Any "life" or "liberty" interest that Pennsylvania law may have given petitioner in the first proceeding's life sentence was not immutable, and he was "deprived" of any such interest only by operation of the "process" he invoked to invalidate the underlying first-degree murder conviction. United States v. Patane, No. 02-1183 (Suppression of physical evidence derived from unwarned but voluntary statement) (decision below 304 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2002)) Questions Presented: Whether a failure to give a suspect the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), requires the suppression of physical evidence derived from the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statement? Sixth Amendment Banks v. Cockrell, No. 02-8286 (Ineffective assistance of counsel ) (decision below unreported (5th Cir. 2002)) Question Presented: (2) Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? Fellers v. United States, No. 02-6320 (Statements elicited by government; post-indictment interview without counsel) (decision below 285 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2002)) Questions Presented: (1) Did the 8th Circuit err when it concluded that Feller's 6th Amendment right to counsel under Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because he was not interrogated by government agents when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent is whether the government agents deliberately elicited information from him? (2) Should second statements, preceded by Miranda warnings, have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal post-indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court's decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)? Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 Wiggins v. Corcoran, No. 02-311 (Ineffective assistance of counsel / reasonable investigation) (decision below 288 F.3d 629 (4th Cir. 2002)) Question Presented: Does defense counsel in capital case violate requirements of Strickland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigating evidence that could have convinced jury to impose life sentence, as this court concluded in Williams v. Taylor, and most courts of appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel’s decision not to investigate such evidence “virtually unchallengeable” so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant’s background, as Fourth Circuit held in this case? Eighth Amendment Ewing v. California, No. 01-6978 (California “Three Strikes” law & cruel & unusual punishment clause) (decision below unreported (2nd DCA Ca. 2001)) Question Presented: Does petitioner’s twenty-five-years-to-life prison sentence violate the federal constitutional provision against cruel and unusual punishments because his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense of stealing golf clubs? Decision: Three justices (O’Connor, Rehnquist and Kennedy) concluded that the punishment was not grossly disproportionate, but was “justified by the State's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons,” and “supported by [Ewing’s] own long, serious criminal record.” Two justices (Scalia and Thomas) opined that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit disproportionate punishments except as to the mode of punishment, rather than the length of a sentence. Lockyer v. Andrade, No. 01-1127 (California three-strikes law & cruel & unusual punishments clause) (decision below 270 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2001)) Question Presented: (1) Does California’s three-strikes law, which provides for prison term of 25 years to life for third strike conviction, violate Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when applied to a defendant
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2017 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 2017 (As of July 1, 2017) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,817 Race of Defendant: White 1,196 (42.46%) Black 1,168 (41.46%) Latino/Latina 373 (13.24%) Native American 26 (0.92%) Asian 53 (1.88%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,764 (98.12%) Female 53 (1.88%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 33 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 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: 20 Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, 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: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Spring 2017 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2016 or 2017 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194 (Use of websites by sex offender) (decision below 777 S.E.2d 738 (N.C.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES of AMERICA the Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The execution of mentally ill offenders I cannot believe that capital punishment is a solution – to abolish murder by murdering, an endless chain of murdering. When I heard that my daughter’s murderer was not to be executed, my first reaction was immense relief from an additional torment: the usual catastrophe, breeding more catastrophe, was to be stopped – it might be possible to turn the bad into good. I felt with this man, the victim of a terrible sickness, of a demon over which he had no control, might even help to establish the reasons that caused his insanity and to find a cure for it... Mother of 19-year-old murder victim, California, November 1960(1) Today, at 6pm, the State of Florida is scheduled to kill my brother, Thomas Provenzano, despite clear evidence that he is mentally ill.... I have to wonder: Where is the justice in killing a sick human being? Sister of death row inmate, June 2000(2) I’ve got one thing to say, get your Warden off this gurney and shut up. I am from the island of Barbados. I am the Warden of this unit. People are seeing you do this. Final statement of Monty Delk, mentally ill man executed in Texas on 28 February 2002 Overview: A gap in the ‘evolving standards of decency’ The underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency. Indiana Supreme Court Justice, September 2002(3) On 30 May 2002, a jury in Maryland sentenced Francis Zito to death.
    [Show full text]
  • By Tori Alexandra Koen
    Different Dreams: An Examination of America' and Japan's National Characters An Honors Thesis (HONRS 499) by Tori Alexandra Koenig Thesis Advisor: Dr. Anthony Edmonds Ball State University Muncie, Indiana April 2008 Expected Date of Graduation: May 2009 1 Abstract When trying to distinguish what makes a member of one society different from an individual of another, the idea of national character often assumes a prominent role in the discussion. National character is the set of values that one culture treasures as the most important to the majority of individuals in that nation. This paper examines the American and Japanese national characters and looks at the fundamental dissimilarities between the two. In the United States, the definition of who is an American is based on whether or not the person appreciates the American Dream. As opposed the individualistic outlook that this ideal promotes, the Japanese share a sense of duty and view the group as the basis for society_ The contrast between these two views is clearly seen in the societies' reactions to national tragedies. To analyze this theory, I use the public's responses to the Oklahoma City bombing and the Tokyo subway sarin attacks as case studies. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Anthony Edmonds for all of his help throughout this project. Not only did he help me to create a better topic, but he also has guided me while I have worked on this paper. I want to thank Dr. Phyllis Zimmerman for her assistance with the Japanese character portions of my paper as well.
    [Show full text]
  • No Longer on Indiana's Death
    NO LONGER ON INDIANA’S DEATH ROW According to records available to the Indiana Public Defender Council, ninety-seven individuals have been sentenced to death in Indiana since the 1977 reinstatement of capital punishment here. Eighty-nine individuals, listed below, are no longer on death row, including twenty-two individuals who have been executed (20 by Indiana and 2 by other states), six who died while on death-row, and fifty-nine who have had their death sentences set aside. Eight individuals are currently under sentence of death. Name Year Sentenced Status to Death Hicks, Larry 1978 New trial granted by trial court, two weeks before scheduled execution; acquitted on retrial, 11/20/1980. Judy, Steven 1980 Executed, March 9, 1981, after waiving non-mandatory appeals. Hollis, David 1982 Suicide while awaiting appeal. Dillon, Richard 1981 New trial ordered on federal habeas, Dillon v. Duckworth, 751 F.2d 895 (7th Cir. 1984);Pled to term of years pending retrial. Vandiver, William 1984 Executed, October 16, 1985, after waiving all non-mandatory appeals. Thompson, Jay 1982 Death vacated on direct appeal; remanded for new judge sentencing based on jury recommendation against death, Thompson v. State, 492 N.E.2d 264 (1986); resentenced to sixty years. Patton, Keith 1984 Guilty plea vacated on state PCR, Patton v. State, 517 N.E.2d 374 (1987). Sentenced to 120 years at Trial, 3/17/1990. Martinez-Chavez, 1985 Death vacated on direct appeal; Indiana Eladio Supreme Court orders sixty year sentence imposed. Martinez-Chavez v. State, 534 N.E.2d 731 (1989). Cooper, Paula 1986 Death vacated on direct appeal; Indiana Supreme Court orders sixty year 1 sentence imposed, Cooper v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1996 The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People David C. Williams Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Williams, David C., "The Militia Movement and Second Amendment Revolution: Conjuring with the People" (1996). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 633. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/633 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE MILITIA MOVEMENT AND SECOND AMENDMENT REVOLUTION: CONJURING WITH THE PEOPLE David C. Williams4 INTRODUCTION ................................................. 879 I. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS RIGHT-ARMED REVOLUTION .... 886 A. Fear of the Government ............................ 887 B. The Revolutionary Second Amendment ............. 892 C. The Importance of the Militia ...................... 896 D. The Danger of Disarmament ....................... 901 II. WHAT THE MILITIA HAS WRONG--THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ................................................. 904 A. The Framers' View of the People
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Fall 2020 A quarterly report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Fall 2020 (As of October 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2553 (2553 – 180* - 877M = 1496 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,076 (42.15%) Black 1,062 (41.60%) Latino/Latina 343 (13.44%) Native American 24 (0.94%) Asian 47 (1.84%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,502 (98.00%) Female 51 (2.00%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 30 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, OregonM, PennsylvaniaM, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. M States where a moratorium prohibiting execution has been imposed by the Governor. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 23 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire [see note below], New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively. The man already sentenced remains under sentence of death.] * Designates the number of people in non-moratorium states who are not under active death sentence because of court reversal but whose sentence may be reimposed. M Designates the number of people in states where a gubernatorial moratorium on execution has been imposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty' Class Created to Explore Major Perspectives on Controversial Subject University of Dayton
    University of Dayton eCommons News Releases Marketing and Communications 4-10-2002 UD 'Death Penalty' Class Created to Explore Major Perspectives on Controversial Subject University of Dayton Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/news_rls Recommended Citation University of Dayton, "UD 'Death Penalty' Class Created to Explore Major Perspectives on Controversial Subject" (2002). News Releases. 10074. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/news_rls/10074 This News Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Marketing and Communications at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in News Releases by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. \). \ UNIVERSITY o April 10, 2002 Contact: Jim Pickering [email protected] DAYTON NEWS RELEASE (Editor's note: Media are invited to attend the class that Sister Helen Prejean, C.S.J., author of the best-selling book 'Dead Man Walking: An Eye Witness Account of the Death Penalty in the U.S.,' will address from 3:30 to 5 p.m. Thursday, April 18, in Sears Recital Hall in the Jesse Philips Humanities Center. At 7:30p.m. that day, Prejean will receive an honorary doctorate of humane letters for her devotion to Catholic social justice issues.) UD 'DEATH PENALTY' CLASS CREATED TO EXPLORE MAJOR PERSPECTIVES ON CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT DAYTON, Ohio -Alison Radelet was 13 when a woman whose daughter had been raped and killed addressed the audience. The woman talked about her struggle to forgive her child's murderer. The woman said that through an exchange of letters with the imprisoned man, she had come to see another side of him, a side that aspired to atone for his sin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Struggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads, 73 New York University Law Review
    Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1998 The trS uggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads Terry A. Maroney Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Law and Race Commons Recommended Citation Terry A. Maroney, The Struggle Against Hate Crime: Movement at a Crossroads, 73 New York University Law Review. 564 (1998) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/764 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STRUGGLE AGAINST HATE CRIME: MOVEMENT AT A CROSSROADS TERRY A. MARONEY* INTRODUCTION Hate crime,' far from being an anomaly, has been a means of maintaining dominant power relationships throughout United States history.2 Hate crime may be defined as acts of violence motivated by animus against persons and groups because of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin or immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, disa- bility (including, for example, HIV status), and age.3 Thus defined, * I would like to thank Brendan Fay, Thomas Hilbink, James B. Jacobs, Leslie Kahn, Jennifer Mason, Janet Prolman, Paul Schmidt, Jonathan Simon, the staff, volunteers, and clients of the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project (AVP), the students of the New York University School of Law Institute for Law and Society, and all those who agreed to be interviewed for this Note.
    [Show full text]
  • The Illusion of Control “Consensual” Executions, the Impending Death of Timothy Mcveigh, and the Brutalizing Futility of Capital Punishment
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The illusion of control “Consensual” executions, the impending death of Timothy McVeigh, and the brutalizing futility of capital punishment The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men. On crimes and punishments, Cesare Beccaria, 1764. There is no proof that the death penalty ever made a single murderer recoil when he had made up his mind, whereas clearly it had no effect but one of fascination on thousands of criminals; in other regards, it constitutes a repulsive example, the consequences of which cannot be foreseen. Reflections on the guillotine, Albert Camus, 1957. If...we are to be sincere in our efforts to reduce violence, there is one type of violence that we can with complete certainty eliminate. That is the killing of criminals by the state. The question is, will people learn to respect life better by threat or by example? And the uniform answer of history, comparative studies and experience is that man is an emulative animal. Norval Morris and Gordon Hawkins, US criminologists. A defendant’s voluntary submission to a barbaric punishment does not ameliorate the harm that imposing such a punishment causes to our basic societal values and to the integrity of our system of justice. Certainly a defendant’s consent to being drawn and quartered or burned at the stake would not license the State to exact such punishments. Whitmore v Arkansas, US Supreme Court, Justice Marshall dissenting, 1990. The death penalty, guns, violence in society, these cast a large cloud on America’s moral leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911 John D
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 22 | Issue 2 Article 15 1996 The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911 John D. Bessler Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Bessler, John D. (1996) "The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 22: Iss. 2, Article 15. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol22/iss2/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Bessler: The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penal THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" AND MINNESOTA'S ANTI-DEATH PENALTY MOVEMENT, 1849-191 1t John D. Besslertt I. INTRODUCTION ........................... 578 II. THE MINNESOTA TERRITORY AND THE EARLY STATEHOOD YEARS, 1849-1867 ................. 583 A. A Public Execution on the Prairie ............ 583 B. Lynch Mobs and FrontierJustice ............. 586 C. Early Abolitionist Efforts and the Execution of Anne Bilansky .............................. 589 D. More Public Hangings .................... 599 III. THE EXECUTION MORATORIUM, 1868-1884 ........ 603 A. The 1868 Act .......................... 603 B. The Repeal of the 1868 Act ................. 608 IV. THE RESUMPTION OF HANGINGS IN MINNESOTA, 1885-1889 . .............................. 614 A. Daytime Executions ...................... 614 B. The Barrett Boys and the Beginning of the 1889 Legislative Session ...................... 616 V. THE PASSAGE OF THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" IN 1889 ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 EXECUTION OF THE MENTALLY ILL3 THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT 4 INEFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION9 FEDERAL FUNDING FOR DEATH ROW LAW CENTRES REMOVED 11 US CONGRESS ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT LEGAL APPEALS FOR DEATH ROW INMATES 12 FORMER GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI’S STATE PRISON SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY12 THIRTY-EIGHTH STATE REINTRODUCES THE DEATH PENALTY 13 THREE STATES REJECT THE RETURN OF THE DEATH PENALTY14 FIRST EXECUTIONS IN MONTANA AND PENNSYLVANIA 15 CRUELTY OF EXECUTIONS 16 TEXAS TO ALLOW VICTIM’S FAMILY TO WITNESS EXECUTIONS 17 POLL SHOWS LITTLE SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY AMONG POLICE CHIEFS 17 PARTICIPATION OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS IN THE EXECUTION PROCESS 18 PRISONERS WHO ABANDONED THEIR APPEALS AND SOUGHT EXECUTION 19 PRISONERS EXECUTED DURING 199521 STATISTICS24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Developments on the death penalty during 1995 Introduction At the end of 1995 an unprecedented number of prisoners - over 3,000 - were under sentence of death in 34 states and under US federal military law (8 prisoners) and US federal civilian law (6 prisoners). Fifty-six prisoners were executed; a higher total than in any previous single year since states revised their death penalty statutes in the mid-1970s. This brings to 313 the total number of prisoners executed in the USA since 1977. New York became the thirty-eighth state to reintroduce the death penalty in March 1995. The states of Pennsylvania and Montana carried out their first executions since the death penalty resumed in 1977. However the two prisoners executed in Pennsylvania had chosen to abandon their appeals and had sought execution.
    [Show full text]
  • OCTOBER TERM 1996 Reference Index Contents
    JNL96$IND1Ð08-20-99 15:29:27 JNLINDPGT MILES OCTOBER TERM 1996 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics ....................................................................................... II General .......................................................................................... III Appeals ......................................................................................... III Arguments ................................................................................... III Attorneys ...................................................................................... IV Briefs ............................................................................................. IV Certiorari ..................................................................................... IV Costs .............................................................................................. V Judgments and Opinions ........................................................... V Original Cases ............................................................................. V Parties ........................................................................................... V Rehearings ................................................................................... VI Rules ............................................................................................. VI Stays .............................................................................................. VI Conclusion ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]