COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK People of the State of New York, Respondent - against – Robert Shulman Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AS AMICUS CURIAE Joshua L. Dratel* Committee on Capital Punishment, Ass’n of the Bar of the City of New York 14 Wall Street, 28th floor New York, New York 10005 (212) 732-0707 *Counsel of record for Amicus Curiae 21569547v1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................iii FEDERAL CASES ................................................................................................iii NEW YORK STATE CASES ...............................................................................iii STATUTES..........................................................................................................viii OTHER AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................viii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ................................................................................... 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................... 3 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 5 I. THE STRICT SCUTINY STANDARD APPLIES TO NEW YORK SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAIMS INVOLVING THE DEATH PENALTY .............................................................................................................. 6 A. New York’s Substantive Due Process Standard Is More Expansive than the Federal Standard............................................................................ 7 B. New York State Imposes the Strictest Scrutiny for the Fundamental Right to Life........................................................................ 10 II. NEW YORK’S DEATH PENALTY STATUTE DOES NOT PASS THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST, AND THEREFORE IT VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ................................................................................... 17 A. The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime, Let Alone by the Least Restrictive Method.................................................................................... 18 1. There is No Statistical Correlation Between the Death Penalty and the Murder Rate in New York................................... 19 2. There Is No Statistical Correlation Between the Death Penalty and the Murder Rate Generally........................................ 23 3. Criminal Justice Authorities Endorse the Findings of Social Science that the Death Penalty Does Not Deter Violent Crime............................................................................................. 25 B. The Death Penalty Is Not the Least Restrictive Method for Incapacitating Criminals ........................................................................... 27 C. Retribution Is Not a Compelling State Interest Nor Is the Death Penalty the Least Restrictive Method of Retribution................................ 30 i 21569547v1 III. OTHER STATES, INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES AND OTHER SOURCES SHOW THAT NEW YORK’S DEATH PENALTY FAILS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS TEST AND VIOLATES DUE PROCESS ............................................................................................................. 34 A. Twelve Other States Without the Death Penalty Achieve the Same Governmental Interests as States With the Death Penalty........................ 34 B. The Death Penalty is Not Necessary Because the World Community Has Rejected the Death Penalty............................................ 36 C. The Reasoining of Major Religions and Philosophers Further Supports that the Death Penalty Fails the Least Restrictive Means Test............................................................................................................ 39 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 43 ii 21569547v1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)................................................................................................ 4 Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).............................................................................................. 10 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).......................................................................................... 7, 32 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)........................................................................................ 25, 40 Sell v. United States, 123 S. Ct. 2174 (2003)............................................................................................ 9 Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 (1987)................................................................................................ 33 Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).............................................................................................. 14 NEW YORK STATE CASES People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 440 N.Y.S.2d 902 (1981) .............................................................. 7 People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375, 521 N.Y.S.2d 212 (1987) .............................................................. 7 People v. Arthur, 175 Misc.2d 742, 673 N.Y.S.2d 486 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) .................................. 14 Asian Americans for Equality v. Koch, 72 N.Y.2d 121, 531 N.Y.S.2d 782 (1988) ............................................................ 11 iii 21569547v1 Barker v. People, 3 Cow. 686, 15 Am. Dec. 322, 1824 WL 2277 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1824).................. 16 People v. Bishop, 66 A.D. 415, 73 N.Y.S. 226 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dept. 1901)............................. 16 People v. Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100, 371 N.Y.S.2d 471 (1975) .............................................................. 3 Broadway Catering Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 106 Misc.2d 1025, 436 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1980) ................................ 11 People v. Cates, 104 A.D.2d 895, 480 N.Y.S.2d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. 1984).................. 14 People v. Chapleau, 121 N.Y. 266 (1890) ............................................................................................. 15 City of Amsterdam v. Helsby, 37 N.Y.2d 19, 371 N.Y.S.2d 404 (1975) ................................................................ 6 People v. Cole, 152 A.D.2d 851, 544 N.Y.S.2d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 3rd Dept. 1989) ................ 14 Cooper v. Morin, 49 N.Y.2d 69, 424 N.Y.S.2d 168 (1979) ............................................................ 8, 9 People v. Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 400 N.Y.S.2d 735 (1977) ........................................................ 10, 19 People v. Fitzpatrick, 32 N.Y.2d 499, 346 N.Y.S.2d 793 (1973) ...................................................... 19, 21 People v. Foley, 94 N.Y.2d 668, 709 N.Y.S.2d 467 (2000) ............................................................ 12 Fosmire v. Nicoleau, 75 N.Y.2d 218, 551 N.Y.S.2d 876 (1990) .............................................................. 9 People v. Fox, 175 Misc.2d 333, 669 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. County Ct. 1997).............................. 12 Freeman v. People, 4 Denio 9, 47 Am. Dec. 216, 1847 WL 4116 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1847)..................... 15 iv 21569547v1 Golden v. Clark, 76 N.Y.2d 618, 563 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1990) ................................................................ 11 People v. Gordon, 175 Misc.2d 67, 667 N.Y.S.2d 626 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) .................................... 14 People v. Hale, 173 Misc.2d 140, 661 N.Y.S.2d 457 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) ................................. 31 People v. Hansen, 9 N.Y.2d 339 (N.Y. 2003) ...................................................................................... 3 People v. Harris, 98 N.Y.2d 452 (2002) ............................................................................................. 4 People v. Hovey, 5 Barb. 117, 1849 WL 5057 (N.Y. Sup. Gen. Term 1849)................................... 14 Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, 566 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1991) ............................................................ 10 In re Andrea B., 94 Misc.2d 919, 405 N.Y.S.2d 977 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1978) ................................... 13 In re Harry M., 96 A.D.2d 201, 468 N.Y.S.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. 1983).................... 13 In re Marie B., 62 N.Y.2d 352, 477 N.Y.S.2d 87 (1984) .............................................................. 11 In re O'Connor, 72 N.Y.2d 517, 534 N.Y.S.2d 886 (1988) ...................................................... 13, 31 In re Quinton A., 49 N.Y.2d 328, 425 N.Y.S.2d 788 (1980) ............................................................ 11 In re Sylvia M., 82 A.D.2d 217, 443 N.Y.S.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 1981)................... 13 People v. Isaacson, 44 N.Y.2d 511, 406 N.Y.S.2d 714 (1978) ........................................................ 9, 10 People v. Jackson, 14 N.Y.2d 5, 247 N.Y.S.2d 481 (1964) ................................................................ 17 v 21569547v1 People v. Kelhoffer, 181 Misc. 731, 48 N.Y.S.2d 771 (N.Y. County Ct. 1943).................................... 15 People v. Koertge, 182 Misc.2d 183, 701 N.Y.S.2d 588 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 1998).................................... 7 People v. Leyra, 302 N.Y. 353 (1951) ............................................................................................