As states and counties across the United States are using the death penalty with decreasing frequency, a new report issued by the Fair Punishment Project on August 23 explores the outlier practices of 16 U.S. counties that are bucking the national trend and disproportionally pursuing capital punishment. These jurisdictions, representing one-half of one percent of all U.S. counties or county equivalents, are the only locales in the United States to have imposed five or more death sentences since 2010. Six of the counties are in Alabama and Florida, the only two states that still permit non-unanimous death verdicts. Five are located in highly-populated Southern California counties that have been the focus of repeated allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. The others include Caddo (LA), Clark (NV), Dallas (TX), Harris (TX) and Maricopa (AZ), all of which have been criticized for systemic inequities in their administration of the death penalty. Part one of the report examines the "systemic deficiencies" that contribute to the high number of death sentences in these counties and provides detailed analysis of the circumstances in 8 of the counties (a second part of the study, examining the remaining 8 counties, will be released in September). The report finds that these counties frequently share at least three types of structural failings: "a history of overzealous prosecutions, inadequate defense lawyering, and a pattern of racial bias and exclusion." The study found that these in turn "regularly produce two types of unjust outcomes which disproportionately impact people of color: the wrongful conviction of innocent people, and the excessive punishment of persons who are young or suffer from severe mental illnesses, brain damage, trauma, and intellectual disabilities."
For each of the counties, researchers looked at the percentage of cases in which prosecutorial misconduct was found, noting that about one in seven cases involved a finding of misconduct by an appellate court. One county, Clark County, Nevada, had a finding of misconduct in 47% of cases. In exploring the issue of inadequate defense, researchers found that lawyers spent less than one day, on average, presenting mitigating evidence to persuade penalty-phase jurors to impose a sentence less than death. Though little mitigation was presented, nearly half (44%) of defendants sentenced to death in the outlier counties had an intellectual disability, brain damage, or severe mental illness. The authors write, "This is what capital punishment in America looks like today. While the vast majority of counties have abandoned the practice altogether, what remains is the culmination of one systemic deficiency layered atop another."
("Too Broken to Fix: Part I," The Fair Punishment Project, August 23, 2016.) See Studies and Prosecutorial Misconduct. Beginning later this week, DPIC will publish individual stories featuring each of the outlier counties.Tweet
A recent poll by researcher Craig Haney, a Professor of Psychology at the University of California - Santa Cruz, has found that a "strong majority" of Florida respondents prefer life without parole to the death penalty for people convicted of murder, even as many harbor continuing misconceptions about capital punishment that would predispose them to support the death penalty. In Haney's survey of more than 500 jury-eligible respondents who were asked to choose between Florida's statutorily available sentencing options, 57% chose life without parole, while 43% chose the death penalty, as the appropriate punishment for a person convicted of murder. The preference for life held true, Haney said, across racial groups, genders, educational levels, and religious affiliation. The Florida results are consistent with recent polls in other death penalty states, such as Kentucky and Oklahoma. Dr. Haney found that Floridians held two common misconceptions about the death penalty that affected their views on the issue: 68.9% mistakenly believed that the death penalty was cheaper than life without parole, and 40.2% mistakenly believed that people sentenced to life without parole would be released from prison. Haney said "support for the death penalty plummeted" to 29% if the life sentencing option was combined with a requirement that these prisoners be required to pay restitution to victims' families. In addition, when Floridians were given the option of diverting the $1 million per case currently spent on the death penalty to investigate unsolved rapes and murders, only one quarter still supported capital punishment. Dr. Haney's research also found that a majority of Floridians oppose the death penalty for defendants with serious mental illness, do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent, and agree that most religious opinion opposes capital punishment. Haney said asking people simply if they support the death penalty is inadequate because "[t]hat question offers a limited and often flawed snapshot of voter attitudes, capturing only abstract support or opposition, but failing to expose strong preferences and deeper pragmatic thinking."
Dr. Haney argues that it is important in public opinion research to offer respondents the actual policy choices available to them, rather than asking more theoretical questions. "What this research demonstrates is that Floridians' attitudes on the death penalty are complex. Their preferences change depending on the range of options presented to them," he said. "The go-to polling question, 'Do you support the death penalty?' rarely captures the nuance of how voters are thinking about this issue."
(C. Haney, "Column: Floridians prefer life without parole over capital punishment for murderers," Tampa Bay Times, August 16, 2016.) See Public Opinion and Life Without Parole.Tweet
Diverse Range of Voices Call for Sparing Jeff Wood, Who Never Killed Anyone, from Execution in Texas
As his August 24 execution date approaches, Jeffrey Wood's case has garnered mounting attention from groups and individuals calling on the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Greg Abbott to commute Wood's sentence. These diverse voices include a conservative Texas state representative, a group of evangelical leaders, and the editorial boards of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and several Texas newspapers, among others. Wood (pictured) was convicted under Texas' "law of parties," but he neither killed nor intended for anyone to be killed and, his supporters say, was not even aware the robbery in which a codefendant killed a store clerk was going to occur. His trial also featured misleading testimony from Dr. James Grigson, who had been expelled from psychiatric associations because of his unethical testimony regarding the potential future dangerousness of capital defendants. Republican state representative Jeff Leach, a long-time death penalty supporter, said "Jeffery Lee Wood’s case has caught my attention unlike any death row inmate in my time in office has. ...I simply do not believe that Mr. Wood is deserving of the death sentence. I can’t sit quietly by and not say anything." Leach has spoken with Gov. Abbott's office and the parole board about the case and is urging other legislators to contact the board in support of commutation before the board votes on Wood's clemency petition on Monday. Gov. Abbott also received a petition from a group of evangelical Christian leaders, who said "Our faith compels us to speak out in this case, where a looming execution date threatens the life of an individual with significant mental impairments who never should have been sentenced to death." The 49 religious leaders also noted the disproportionality of Wood's sentence: "As the getaway driver, Wood committed a crime, but not one deserving the death penalty." A New York Times editorial also urged clemency for Wood and sharply critiqued the law of parties. "The Law of Parties stands as a grotesque demonstration of how utterly arbitrary capital punishment is," it said. "The only true course for justice in Texas is for the law to be scrapped and Mr. Wood’s life to be spared." Wood's supporters say they will deliver a petition to Gov. Abbott and the parole board Friday with thousands of signatures seeking commutation of Wood's sentence. Texas last commuted a death sentence in 2007 in the case of Kenneth Foster, a getaway driver who, like Wood, had been convicted under the law of parties. [UPDATE: On August 19, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a stay of execution to permit Wood to litigate his claims that the prosecution had presented false scientific evidence and that the use of false testimony from Dr. Grigson violated due process.]
(J. McCullough, "State Rep. Leach Tries to Stop Jeff Wood Execution," The Texas Tribune, August 17, 2016; A. Blumberg, "Dozens Of Evangelical Leaders Petition Texas To Stop Scheduled Execution," Huffington Post, August 17, 2016; Editorial, "Texas should stop trying to kill a non-killer," Washington Post, August 14, 2016; Editorial, "Rare Chance for Mercy on Texas’ Death Row," The New York Times, August 18, 2016; Editorial, "Texas should halt execution of a man of who never killed anyone," Dallas Morning News, August 19, 2016; Editorial, "Commuting sentence right thing," San Antonio Express-News, August 19, 2016 .) See Arbitrariness, Clemency, and New Voices.Tweet
Defense Attorney Retires from Capital Practice After No Acquittals in 40 Years and 21 Clients Sent to Death Row
Harris County, Texas has sent more people to death row than any other county in the United States and Jerry Guerinot (pictured) was defense counsel for twenty-one of them. His death-sentenced clients included two who were juveniles at the time of the crime and another who was later freed after prosecutors dropped charges against him. Labeled by some as "the worst lawyer in the United States," in forty years of practice, none of Guerinot's capital murder clients was acquitted. Now, after decades of criticism, Guerinot says he will no longer take capital cases. Guerinot asserts that his record is a by-product of the cases he was assigned: "My theory is if they are the sorriest of the worst or the very worst, I got 'em. Somebody's got to defend - 'defend' is the wrong word - represent these people." Other attorneys, however, say he did not adequately represent his clients. "I wouldn't be here if I had better counse," Linda Carty, a British national who was one of Guerinot clients, said. "I met this guy for less than 15 minutes. Once." Although investigative assistance was available from the British consulate, Guerinot never sought it, she says. Guerinot also served as top assistant to the lead attorney for Duane Buck, whose appeal will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this fall based upon defense counsel's use of a psychologist who told Buck's sentencing jury that he was more likely to pose a future danger to society because he is Black. Kathryn Kase, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, said defense counsel sat silent as their witness provided racially-biased testimony against their client and "never objected to the prosecution's questions or arguments ... that skin color, race, makes someone more likely to be dangerous in the future." Jim Marcus, co-director of the Capital Punishment Clinic at the University of Texas, noted that Guerinot had four separate clients sentenced to death in a seven-month period in 1996. "It is unthinkable that a defense attorney would try four separate death penalty cases to verdict in the space of seven months," he said. Veteran capital defense lawyer and University of Houston law professor David Dow told the New York Times in 2010 that the large number of death sentences imposed on Guerinot's clients reflected a failure to conduct simple investigations. "He doesn't even pick the low-hanging fruit which is hitting him in the head as he's walking under the tree," Dow said. Guerinot said, "I'm there to ensure they get a fair shake. And, by God, there ain't one of them that didn't."
(M. Graczyk, "Texas Lawyer Who Lost All Death Penalty Cases Says He's Done," Associated Press, August 13, 2016; A. Liptak, "A Lawyer Known Best for Losing Capital Cases," New York Times, May 17, 2010; Photo by M. Graczyk, Associated Press.) See Representation.Tweet
The Equal Justice Initiative has announced plans to construct a Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama to commemorate the victims of terror lynchings in the American South. In a New Yorker profile of EJI executive director Bryan Stevenson, Jeffrey Toobin describes EJI's criminal defense work and the genesis of the lynching memorial. "There’s no question that we have a long history of seeing people through [a] lens of racial difference. It’s a direct line from slavery to the treatment of black suspects today, and we need to acknowledge the shamefulness of that history,” Stevenson says. “Our society applies a presumption of dangerousness and guilt to young black men, and that’s what leads to wrongful arrests and wrongful convictions and wrongful death sentences." EJI's groundbreaking book, Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror, has documented hundreds of previously unacknowledged lynchings across the South. Stevenson and other scholars link the history of lynchings to the use of the death penalty today. Professor Jordan Steiker of the University of Texas at Austin said, “In one sense, the death penalty is clearly a substitute for lynching. One of the main justifications for the use of the death penalty, especially in the South, was that it served to avoid lynching. The number of people executed rises tremendously at the end of the lynching era. And there’s still incredible overlap between places that had lynching and places that continue to use the death penalty.” The peace memorial, which EJI hopes to open in in 2017, will contain a suspended column representing each U.S. county in which a lynching has been documented. Volunteers have traveled across the American South collecting soil from each known lynching site for inclusion in the memorial. In addition to the permanent columns, there will be a removeable column for each county, which EJI will encourage local jurisdictions to return to their home counties to display as an acknowledgment of their history. “We’re going to create a space where you can walk and spend time and go through that represents these lynchings," Stevenson said, "But, more than that, we’re going to challenge every county in this country where a lynching took place to come and claim a memorial piece—and to erect it in their county.”Tweet
Delaware Attorney General Matt Denn (pictured) announced on August 15 that his office will not appeal the Delaware Supreme Court's August 2 decision in Benjamin Rauf v. State of Delaware, which struck down the state's death penalty statute. In Rauf, the court found that Delaware's capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hurst v. Florida, by granting judges, rather than juries, the ultimate power to decide whether the prosecution had proven all facts necessary to impose the death penalty. Delaware's statute had not required a unanimous jury determination of all aggravating circumstances that were considered in sentencing a defendant to death or a unanimous jury finding that those reasons for death outweighed mitigating circumstances. The Rauf decision intensifies the national spotlight on Alabama and Florida as the only states that still permit judges to impose death sentences after non-unanimous jury recommendations for death and on Alabama as the only remaining state to permit a judge to override a jury's life verdict. The statement of the attorney general's office said Denn "has concluded that even if the United States Supreme Court reversed the opinion on Federal Constitutional grounds, ... the Delaware Supreme Court would ultimately invalidate Delaware’s current death penalty statute based on the Constitution of the State of Delaware." Litigating those issues, he said, "would likely take years" and "would likely not only bring about the same result, but would also deny the families of victims sentencing finality." The statement indicated that state prosecutors would challenge the application of Rauf to the thirteen prisoners currently on Delaware's death row, leaving their status uncertain. For future cases, legislative action is now the only route to reinstating the death penalty in Delaware. Such action seems unlikely, given that it must be approved by both houses of the legislature and by the Governor. However, death penalty abolition bills passed the state Senate in 2013 and 2015, and narrowly failed in the House earlier this year, and Governor Jack Markell has expressed support for abolishing the death penalty and "applaud[ed] the Supreme Court's finding that the state's death penalty law is unconstitutional."
(J. Masulli Reyes and M. Albright, "AG won't appeal Delaware death penalty ruling," The News Journal, August 15, 2016; Press Release, "Attorney General Will Not Appeal To U.S. Supreme Court On Death Penalty," Delaware Department of Justice, August 15, 2016.) See Sentencing and Recent Legislation. Read DPIC Executive Director Robert Dunham's analysis of the national impact of Rauf.Tweet
A new study of Nebraska's death penalty found that the state spends $14.6 million per year to maintain its capital punishment system. The study, The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the State of Nebraska: A Taxpayer Burden?, also estimates that each death penalty prosecution cost Nebraska's taxpayers about $1.5 million more than a life without parole prosecution. At a press conference announcing the study, principal investigator Dr. Ernest Goss—an economics professor at Creighton University and founder of the conservative think tank, Goss & Associates—presented the findings as a strong economic argument in favor of retaining Nebraska's recent repeal of the death penalty. Nebraska voters will decide in November whether to keep the repeal bill, which was passed by the legislature in May 2015 over the veto of Governor Pete Ricketts, or overturn the legislature's decision and reinstate the death penalty. "If economics is your major factor, you should vote to retain," Dr. Goss said. He explained that conducting the study had altered his own views on capital punishment, which he supported before he learned about the economic costs. 1,842 homicides were committed in Nebraska between 1973 and 2014, with prosecutors seeking death 119 times and obtaining 33 death sentences. Of those sentenced to death, the study found that 13 had their sentences reduced, six died in prison, three were executed, one sentence was vacated, and ten are still appealing their sentences. Examining costs on a national level, the study said that death penalty states spend about 3.54% of overall state budgets on criminal justice, while states without the death penalty spend about 2.93%. On average, the death penalty costs a state $23.2 million more per year than alternative sentences. The study was commissioned by the organization Retain a Just Nebraska, which supports retaining the Nebraska legislature's repeal of the state's death penalty. (Click image to enlarge.)
(E. Goss, et. al, "The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the State of Nebraska: A Taxpayer Burden?," Goss & Associates Economic Solutions, August 15, 2016; P. Hammel and J. Duggan, "Death penalty costs Nebraska about $14 million annually, finds study commissioned by capital punishment foes," Omaha World-Herald, Aug. 15, 2016.) See Costs and Studies. Watch the press conference announcing the study's findings.Tweet
Louisiana death row exoneree John Thompson (pictured, center), who was wrongly convicted of two different New Orleans murders as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, has filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice seeking an investigation of more than 100 cases prosecuted by former Orleans Parish assistant district attorney James Williams. Thompson filed his petition on August 2 under provisions of the Law Enforcement Misconduct Statute, which makes it a violation of federal law for police or prosecutors to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives individuals of their constitutional rights. Thompson's petition alleges that Williams "grossly violated his duty, the power entrusted to him and the constitutional rights of countless defendants he prosecuted," including five cases in which death sentences Williams obtained were later overturned for official misconduct. Thompson was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death in 1985. He was exonerated in 2003 after his attorney uncovered crucial blood analysis evidence that had been improperly withheld by the Orelans Parish District Attorney's office. In 2007, a jury awarded him $14 million in damages in a suit he filed against the prosecutor's office, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that award by a 5-4 vote in 2011, expanding the scope of individual prosecutorial immunity and finding that Thompson had not proven that the district attorney’s office itself was responsible for the individual prosecutors' negligence. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, "What happened here . . . was no momentary oversight, no single incident of a lone officer’s misconduct. Instead, the evidence demonstrated that misperception and disregard of Brady’s disclosure requirements were pervasive in Orleans Parish." Thompson said his new petition was prompted in part by concern for defendants who were prosecuted by Williams but did not receive a death sentence. "I was blessed to be on Death Row because it gave me access to attorneys, who eventually proved my innocence," he said. "If I weren't given a death sentence, I'd still be in Angola. My question is: What happened to the 95 or more men who Williams prosecuted but didn't get a death sentence? Where are they now?" Emily Maw, director of the Innocence Project New Orleans, said that New Orleans has the highest exoneration rate per capita in the country. Despite that fact, she said, "no state entity has taken it upon themselves to identify that this is a problem."
(J. Lipinski, "Death row exoneree files request for federal investigation of Orleans DA's office," The Times-Picayune, August 2, 2016.) See Prosecutorial Misconduct.Tweet
Leaders of national Latino evangelical groups are calling for an end to the death penalty, citing both religious convictions and practical concerns about the fairness of capital punishment. Reverend Gabriel Salguero (pictured), founder of the Latino Evangelical Coalition, said, “Given studies on how the death penalty is meted out, particularly for people of color, if it’s not a level playing field, we need to speak out. ... The needle has moved for Latinos and evangelicals." According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Latinos comprise a growing portion of the nation's death rows, increasing from 11% in 2000 to 13.5% in 2010, with half of the new Latino death row inmates coming from California. A 2014 study of California jurors found that white jurors were more likely to impose death sentences if defendants were Latino and poor. Another California study found that the odds that a capital defendant would be sentenced to death were were more than triple for those convicted of killing whites than for those convicted of killing blacks and more than 4 times greater than for defendants convicted of killing Latinos. "There’s been a shift, not just attributed to religion, but a heightened understanding of the death penalty and its implicit bias in the criminal justice system," said Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Salguero summarized the religious backing for opposition to the death penalty, saying, "The gospel teaches us that crime has a place, but God has the last word....Christ was an innocent man who was executed. If there’s a possibility that we execute one innocent person we should have pause."
(R. Sager, "Conservative Latino religious groups make big push to end death penalty," Fox News Latino, August 10, 2016.) See New Voices and Race.Tweet
As Council Reviews Kentucky's Criminal Justice Policies, Former Prosecutors, Judge Urge Repeal of Death Penalty
Kentucky's recently-formed Criminal Justice Policy Assessment Council will be examining the state's criminal code, and is expected to examine a wide range of criminal justice issues—including the death penalty—in the first major overhaul of Kentucky's criminal code since the 1970s. The council, which was formed by Gov. Matt Bevin, includes legislators, judges, criminal justice experts, and religious leaders, charged with producing a list of recommendations for Kentucky lawmakers. One council member, Bishop William Medley, of the Catholic Diocese of Owensboro, has expressed moral opposition to the death penalty, and received backing for repealing the punishment from some in the courts and the prosecution bar. Circuit Judge Jay Wethington, a former prosecutor who prosecuted death penalty cases told the Messenger-Inquirer that he was "going to side with ... Bishop Medley" on that issue, but for different reasons. "We need to get rid of the death penalty," he said. "We spend too much money for the results." Meanwhile, three former Kentucky prosecutors wrote an op-ed for Louisville's Courier-Journal urging abolition of the death penalty. Joseph Gutmann (pictured), Stephen Ryan, and J. Stewart Schneider discussed the results of a recent University of Kentucky poll, which found that a large majority (72.4%) of Kentuckians support a moratorium on executions. They noted that support for the death penalty has risen since 2011, when the American Bar Association released a study that found serious problems with Kentucky's application of the death penalty. At that point, 62% of Kentuckians favored a suspension of executions. They conclude, "These poll results make it clear that Kentuckians’ concern about the fairness of the state’s criminal justice system is growing. As we have written before, replacing the death penalty with life without parole is the best approach for our state – protecting public safety, providing justice to the families of victims, removing the possibility that an innocent person will be executed and saving limited tax dollars."
(J. Mayse, "Judges voice opinions on how to improve state's penal code," The Messenger-Inquirer, July 25, 2016; J. Gutmann, S. Ryan, and J. S. Schneider, "Support grows for suspending Ky. death penalty," Courier-Journal, August 2, 2016.) See Public Opinion and Arbitrariness.Tweet
Defense Lawyers, Former Prosecutors, and Constitutional Rights Groups File Amicus Briefs in Buck v. Davis
Five groups, representing defense lawyers, former prosecutors, and organizations devoted to protecting constitutional liberties have filed amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas death row prisoner Duane Buck. Buck was sentenced to death when a psychiatrist presented by his own lawyer said he posed a greater potential danger to society because he is Black, and the case attained widespread notoriety after the new Texas attorney general failed to honor a commitment by his predecessor not to oppose a new sentencing hearing. On August 4, the National and Texas Associations of Criminal Defense Lawyers, a group of former prosecutors, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Constitutional Accountability Center joined the National Black Law Students Association (NBLSA) in submitting briefs arguing that Buck's rights were violated by the racial arguments made at his trial. The NBLSA said, "Whether by a judge, a prosecutor, or defense counsel, an appeal to a jury based on racial prejudice poisons our system of justice." The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law stated, "Mr. Buck was entitled to have his dangerousness assessed on an individualized basis based on his personal attributes. Instead he received a death sentence tainted by four hundred years of racial stereotyping invoked by a witness who was supposed to testify on his behalf." The former state and federal prosecutors, who include former Texas Governor and Attorney General Mark White, former Attorneys General from Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Ohio, and the second-chair prosecutor from Buck's trial, highlighted Texas' refusal to provide Buck a new sentencing hearing, even though it had included him on a list of defendants whose trials were tainted by similar testimony by the same psychologist, and every other one of those defendants had received new sentencing hearings. "To backtrack on an ethical obligation and decision to grant relief to a defendant in any context is extraordinary; it is particularly so here, where the purpose of backtracking was to defend the propriety of a capital sentencing hearing tainted by racist testimony," they said. The Court is scheduled to hear argument in Buck v. Davis on October 5.Tweet
Poll: Majority of Oklahomans Support Replacing Death Penalty With Life Without Parole Plus Restitution
A new survey conducted by SoonerPoll has found that while three-quarters of likely Oklahoma voters say they support the death penalty in theory, a majority (53%) support abolishing capital punishment and replacing it with a sentence of life without parole, plus restitution to victims' families. Among every political affiliation, more supported the plan to replace the death penalty than favored keeping it, with a majority of Democrats (58%) and independents (57%) supporting abolition and a 48%-41% plurality of Republicans favoring replacing the death penalty. A similar poll from November 2015, shortly after the failed execution of Richard Glossip, found 52% support for replacing the death penalty with life without parole. The poll results reflect a pattern of softening support for capital punishment among voters in death penalty states. Recent polls in a number of such states show respondents expressing support for the death penalty generally, but favoring alternatives to capital punishment when offered a choice of punishments. A Florida poll earlier this year reported that 62% of respondents preferred some form of life in prison for those convicted of murder. In 2015, 54% of Pennsylvanians preferred life in prison. A recently-released Kentucky poll reported that 58% of respondents preferred lengthy prison terms over death sentences, with 72% supporting a moratorium on executions.
(S. Allen, "Majority of Oklahomans support replacing death penalty with life sentences, poll shows," The Oklahoman, August 6, 2016.) See Public Opinion.Tweet
Pharmaceutical Companies Reiterate Opposition to Participating in Executions as States Scramble for Execution Drugs
Distribution restrictions put in place by major pharmaceutical companies in the United States against misuse of their medicines and export regulations instituted by the European Union have made it increasingly difficult for states to obtain supplies of drugs for use in executions. However, despite these restrictions, some states have obtained pharmaceutical products manufactured by these companies for use in lethal injections. The Influence reports that the Commonwealth of Virginia obtained lethal injection drugs produced by the pharmaceutical company Mylan--rocuronium bromide, which induces paralysis, and potassium chloride, which stops the heart--from a large North Carolina based drug wholesaler, Cardinal Health. Mylan wrote to the Virginia prisons seeking assurances that use of its medicines in the future would not be diverted to any "purpose inconsistent with their approved labeling and applicable standards of care." Recently, the Associated Press discovered that the supply of vecuronium bromide obtained by the Arkansas Department of Correction was produced by a subsidiary of Pfizer. Pfizer announced in May 2016 that it opposed the use of its products in executions, stating, "Pfizer makes its products to enhance and save the lives of the patients we serve. Consistent with these values, Pfizer strongly objects to the use of its products as lethal injections for capital punishment." While state secrecy practices leave it unclear from whom Arkansas obtained the restricted drug, Rachel Hooper, a spokesperson for Pfizer, said, "We have implemented a comprehensive strategy and enhanced restricted distribution protocols for a select group of products to help combat their unauthorized use for capital punishment. Pfizer is currently communicating with states to remind them of our policy." As pharmaceutical companies have made their drugs more difficult for states to use, prisons have turned to alternate sources. The Alabama Department of Corrections contacted about 30 compounding pharmacies in an effort to obtain lethal injection drugs, but all refused. Compounding pharmacist Donnie Calhoun said, "For me, as a healthcare professional, I want to help people live longer. The last thing I want to do is help someone die." A Virginia pharmacist who was contacted by the attorney general's office also refused, saying, "No one will do it." Virginia recently adopted a lethal injection secrecy statute that would conceal the identity of its drug supplier, joining many other death penalty states in shielding key information about executions from public scrutiny.
(T. Ganeva, "The Sordid Ways Death-Penalty States Obtain Execution Drugs," Vice, August 2, 2016; C. Lauer, "Pfizer: Arkansas Execution Would 'Misuse' Drug," Associated Press, July 25, 2016.) See Lethal Injection.Tweet
Texas Prisoner Who Did Not Kill Anyone Challenges Execution, Use of False Psychiatrist Testimony to Condemn Him to Die
Lawyers for Jeffery Wood (pictured), a Texas death row prisoner who is scheduled to be executed August 24 despite undisputed evidence that he has never killed anyone, have filed a new petition in state court challenging his death sentence on multiple grounds. They argue that Wood cannot be subject to the death penalty because he neither killed nor intended for anyone to be killed and was not even aware the robbery in which a codefendant killed a store clerk was going to occur. They also challenge his death sentence on the gounds that it was obtained based upon false and scientifically baseless testimony from a discredited psychiatrist that Wood would pose a future danger to society. Wood was convicted of capital murder under the Texas doctrine called the "law of parties," which employs an usually broad interpretation of accomplice liability to make a defendant liable for the acts of others. He was sentenced to death for his alleged role in the murder of a store clerk in 1996 committed by another man, Daniel Reneau, while Wood was outside sitting in a truck. Reneau was executed in 2002. Wood says he and Reneau had planned to rob the store the previous day, but that he had backed out. According to Wood, he did not know Reneau still planned to rob the store, or that Reneau had a gun with him. Jared Tyler, one of Wood's attorneys, said, "I believe that no person in the history of the modern death penalty has been executed with as little culpability and participation in the taking of a life as Mr. Wood." Wood's appeal also alleges that his right to due process was violated when the state presented false and misleading testimony from psychiatrist James Grigson, who earned the nickname "Dr. Death" for testifying in numerous Texas capital cases that the defendant would "certainly" or "absolutely" or "with 100% certainty" commit future acts of violence, including several cases in which defendants later turned out to be innocent. Three years before Wood's hearing, Grigson was expelled from the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association for ethical violations involving making psychiatric diagnoses without having examined capital defendants, predicting with certainty that they would engage in future violent acts, and basing those predictions on hypothetical questions posed by the prosecution that contained "grossly inadequate" information. Nonetheless, based on a prosecution hypothetical question and without having evaluated Wood, Grigson testified that Wood would "certainly" pose a continuing threat to society. Wood's jury was never told that Grigson had been expelled for similar conduct or that the professional associations had determined that his practices were unethical and unscientific.
(S. Heinlein, "Does This Man Deserve to Die?," Texas Monthly, July 28, 2016; J. Smith, "JEFF WOOD DIDN’T KILL ANYONE, BUT TEXAS IS ABOUT TO EXECUTE HIM ANYWAY," The Intercept, August 2, 2016; S. Cobb, "Attorneys for Jeff Wood filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus today for new sentencing hearing," Daily Kos, August 2, 2016.) See Arbitrariness.Tweet
The Delaware Supreme Court on August 2 declared the state's capital sentencing procedures unconstitutional, leaving Delaware without a valid death penalty statute. In the case of Benjamin Rauf v. State of Delaware, the court held that Delaware's death sentencing procedures violate the constitutional principles recently set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2016 decision in Hurst v. Florida. Hurst stated that a capital defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury requires "a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death." Four members of the Delaware high court ruled that the state's capital sentencing statute unconstitutionally empowers judges, rather than jurors, to decide whether the prosecution has proven the existence of aggravating circumstances that are considered in determining whether to impose for the death penalty. They wrote that the jury must unanimously find those facts to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a death sentence may be considered. In an opinion by Chief Justice Leo Strine, Jr., a narrower 3-justice majority of the court also ruled that the facts necessary to impose a death penalty in Delaware included a finding that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances (reasons to spare the defendant's life). Delaware's statute violates the Sixth Amendment, they wrote, because it does not require as a prerequisite to the death penalty that jurors unanimously agree that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt. The court said the unconstitutional sentencing provisions were inseverable from the rest of the death penalty statute, and that any changes to the statute would have to be made by the legislature. However, recent legislative activity suggests that a bill restoring the state's ability to impose death sentences may have difficulty passing. Calling the death penalty "an instrument of imperfect justice," Governor Jack Markell has indicated that he would sign a bill to abolish capital punishment if it passed the legislature. Such a bill passed the state Senate in 2013 and 2015 and was released by the House Judiciary Committee for consideration by the full House, where it narrowly failed earlier this year. Professor Eric Freedman, a death penalty expert at the Hofstra University School of Law, said "[t]his probably means, as a practical matter, the end of the death penalty in Delaware."
Justice James Vaughn Jr. dissented from the ruling. State prosecutors have 15 days to seek reconsideration of the decision and have the option to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. They have not yet indicated whether they will appeal.
(E. Eckholm, "Delaware Supreme Court Rules State’s Death Penalty Unconstitutional," New York Times, August 2, 2016; C. Geidner, "Delaware Supreme Court Rules That State’s Death Penalty Law Is Unconstitutional," BuzzFeed News, August 2, 2016; J. Masulli Reyes, "Top court: Delaware's death penalty law unconstitutional," The News Journal, August 2, 2016.) Read the decision in Rauf v. Delaware. See Sentencing and Recent Legislation.Tweet
On August 1, The Movement for Black Lives issued a 40-point policy platform that includes a call for the abolition of capital punishment. The platform, which was written or endorsed by more than 60 activist groups including the Black Lives Matter Network, describes its purpose as "articulat[ing] our vision of a fundamentally different world." The portion of the platform seeking "an end to capital punishment" calls the death penalty "morally repugnant," and links it to the legacy of race-based lynchings against Blacks in the U.S. "The death penalty devalues Black lives," it states, going on to describe capital punishment as "geographically discriminatory," "expensive," and "randomly and arbitrarily sought by prosecutors." The document also raises concerns about the issue of innocence, noting that 156 people have been exonerated from death row, and capital punishment's connections to mental health and trauma, stating, "many people on death row have mental illnesses, cognitive limitations, severe trauma histories, and prior criminal records, often directly related to racial bias and poverty." Other recommendations related to criminal justice include demilitarization of police, an end to privatization of prisons, and an end to solitary confinement. The platform also contains sections addressing issues related to reparations, economic justice, political access, and investment in Black communities. “We recognize that not all of our collective needs and visions can be translated into policy, but we understand that policy change is one of many tactics necessary to move us towards the world we envision, a world where freedom and justice is the reality,” said M Adams, the co-executive director of Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom, Inc. and one of the authors of the platform.
("Platform," The Movement for Black Lives, August 1, 2016; J. Kaleem, "Black Lives Matter has signed onto a platform in time for the presidential election. Here's what it says," Los Angeles Times, August 1, 2016; Y. Alcindor, "Black Lives Matter Coalition Makes Demands as Campaign Heats Up," New York Times, August 1, 2016.) See Race and Arbitrariness.Tweet
Report: Proposal Billed as Speeding Up California Executions Would Actually Be Costly, Time-Consuming
An initiative on the California ballot this November billed by its supporters as a reform alternative to abolishing the state's death penalty will cost the state tens of millions of dollars to implement, according to an analysis by the Alarcón Advocacy Center at Loyola Law School, and "will not speed up executions." The report, California Votes 2016: An Analysis of the Competing Death Penalty Ballot Initiatives, predicts that Proposition 66 (The Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016), would "cost millions more than the [state's] already expensive death penalty system" and "will only make matters worse by creating more delays and further clogging the state’s over-burdened court system," adding "layers of appeals to a system already facing an insurmountable backlog of decades of death penalty appeals waiting to be decided." The report states that provisions in Prop 66 to exempt lethal injection protocols from public oversight "will certainly be subject to litigation ... on constitutional and other grounds, should Prop 66 pass, adding yet more delays to death penalty cases." The report criticizes Prop 66 as "fail[ing] to make the constitutional changes required to deliver the results it promises" and concludes that "its proposals are so convoluted that they are likely to create many new problems that will not only complicate the administration of the death penalty system, but will also impact and harm the rest of California’s legal system." The report contrasts Prop 66 with an opposing ballot initiative, Proposition 62 (The Justice That Works Act of 2016), which would abolish the death penalty in favor of life without parole. According to the state Legislative Analyst, Prop 66 will cost "tens of millions of dollars per year," while Prop 62 would save California taxpayers $150 million per year. The authors of the Loyola report, Paula Mitchell, executive director of the Alarcón Advocacy Center, and Nancy Haydt, a board member of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, summarize the issues before the voters as follows: "The proponents of both Prop 62 and Prop 66 agree that California’s death penalty system is dysfunctional, exorbitantly expensive, and failing to achieve its purpose. Prop 62 responds to this failed system by replacing it entirely, adapting the existing regime of life imprisonment without parole to cover all persons who are convicted of murder with special circumstances. Prop 66 responds to this failure with a sweeping array of convoluted proposed 'fixes.' Our detailed analysis reveals that most of these changes will actually make the death penalty system worse, and will result in its problems negatively impacting the rest of the legal system in California."
(P. Mitchell and N. Haydt, "California Votes 2016: An Analysis of the Competing Death Penalty Ballot Initiatives," Alarcón Advocacy Center, Loyola Law School, July 20, 2016.) See Studies, Costs, and Recent Legislation.Tweet
Twenty years ago, frustrated by what they perceived to be the slow pace of capital punishment, Colorado legislators adopted a law to "fix" their death penalty by speeding up appeals. Proponents and opponents of the state's death penalty agree on one thing: the law hasn't worked. As The Denver Post reports, the state law intended to streamline the death penalty appeals process by imposing a two-year deadline for decision and consolidating direct appeals and post-conviction appeals into a "unitary" system of review has failed. Colorado's two death row prisoners affected by the law have spent more than seven years at the first step in the appeals process, with no ruling on their cases in sight. The 1997 law changed the order of death penalty appeals, putting the lengthier post-conviction appeal (involving new evidence and claims of ineffective representation or prosecutorial misconduct) first, before the direct appeal (which involves only issues that were raised by defense counsel at the time of trial). Once the trial court rules on the post-conviction appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court would review and resolve both appeals together, in a single "unitary" appeal proceeding. But while the law originally allowed "no extensions of time of any kind" in post-conviction appeals, a 2010 Colorado Supreme Court ruling allowed extensions to be granted under "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to protect a defendant's procedural rights. Death row inmates Robert Ray and Sir Mario Owens both received extensions. Seven years later, Owens' case has had an extensive evidentiary hearing, but the appeal may have to be redone because the state supreme court fired the judge presiding over the case just before he was expected to issue his ruling. Ray's post-conviction hearings have not yet begun. Christopher Decker, a Denver defense attorney, voiced concerns about whether a fast appeals system would adequately protect defendants' constitutional rights: “If they just speed up the process and strip everyone of due process, we’ll have a very fast outcome that will be worth nothing. It won’t stand up to constitutional review.” Jeanne Adkins, the former state representative who sponsored the 1997 bill to speed up appeals, said, "I’m almost to the point where I would say, ‘Let’s do away with it and save the taxpayers the money.'" Expressing frustration with the death penalty system, she says “[t]he death penalty has become so politicized, truthfully, in the last decade or so in Colorado that I really think that a lot of what the legislature tried to do may actually be pretty pointless now.”
(J. Ingold, "Colorado law to speed up death penalty is failing, advocates on both sides say," The Denver Post, July 25, 2016; J. Ingold, "Lawyers for Colorado death row inmate called judge’s firing “literally unprecedented”, The Denver Post, July 1, 2016.) See Costs and Recent Legislation.Tweet
On July 19, the newly constituted Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously voted to uphold a trial court's order granting a new trial to Philadelphia death row prisoner, Christopher Williams. The court determined that Williams' trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective by failing to investigate and present expert forensic testimony on blood flow and gunshot wounds that would have demonstrated that the version of the murders presented by the prosecution's lead witness was incompatible with the physical evidence. The court also ruled that the trial judge had improperly prevented defense lawyers from cross-examining the state's expert witnesses on key matters. The case was the first time the new court was faced with a lower court judgment granting a capital defendant a new trial. A survey of Pennsylvania capital post-conviction appeals by the Death Penalty Information Center, updated through July 25, 2016, found that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued orders affirming or denying post-conviction requests for new trials by capital defendants 257 times since the Commonwealth enacted its current death penalty statute in 1978. This decision was only the third time in this period that the court had ordered or affirmed the grant of a new trial. By contrast, the court had previously voted more than 99% of the time to uphold capital convictions. It had overturned 12 of the last 13 lower court rulings it had considered since April 2006 that had granted death-row prisoners new trials. The sole exception had been the case of Ronald Champney, in which the court split 3-3, with one vacancy on the court caused by the conviction of a justice for public corruption. The tie vote upheld the decision of the trial court in that case.
Last November, Pennsylvania elected three new justices to the court, filling the positions formerly held by avid death penalty supporters who had been forced to resign as a result of "porngate" (a far-reaching email scandal involving the dissemination of pornographic, misogynistic, racist, and other offensive emails on public computers), ethics violations, or criminal convictions. A fourth leading death penalty proponent, former Chief Justice Ronald Castille—who was the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court's judicial bias ruling in Terrance Williams v. Pennsylvania—left the court at the end of 2014 after reaching the state's mandatory retirement age.
(See R. Dunham, "Pennsylvania Supreme Court Capital Post-Conviction Appellate Decisions Under Current Death Penalty Statute (1978-2015)," July 25, 2016.)Tweet
Defendant Seeks Supreme Court Review of Prosecutorial Ghostwriting, A Widespread Practice in Capital Cases
Doyle Lee Hamm (pictured), an Alabama death row prisoner, has asked the United States Supreme Court to consider his case after Alabama's state and federal appellate courts upheld an order in which the trial court rejected his appeal by adopting word-for-word an 89-page order written by the state attorney general's office. In a process The Marshall Project's Andrew Cohen described as "a sham," the court dismissed Hamm's appeal one business day after receiving the prosecution's proposed order, without so much as removing the word "proposed" from the title of the order. In 1987, Hamm's jury had taken only 45 minutes to sentence him to death after his lawyer presented a 19-minute case for life that involved just two witnesses—Hamm’s sister and a bailiff. Twelve years later, Hamm’s post-conviction lawyers argued that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel in that penalty hearing and presented the court with extensive mitigating evidence that his trial lawyer had never investigated. This evidence included a childhood diagnosis of borderline mental retardation, school records reflecting Hamm's intellectual deficits, and evidence of seizures, head injuries, and drug and alcohol abuse. Cohen reports that the jury never heard that Hamm was "a barely literate, brain-damaged man with little impulse control, someone who might have been perceived as having diminished criminal responsibility." Yet the attorney general's proposed order, signed by the judge, rejected this evidence as merely "cumulative" of the sparse case for life that had been presented at trial. Cohen reports that the practice of judges adopting opinions or orders written by prosecutors, often without making any substantive changes or even correcting typos, is surprisingly widespread in capital cases. In addition to Alabama, similar "ghostwritten" orders have been documented in states such as Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. In one Ohio case, a judge was sanctioned for violating the judicial code of conduct and an inmate's death sentence was vacated after the judge drafted an opinion with prosecutors, but in Hamm's case and many others, opinions written by prosecutors and signed by judges have been upheld in state courts and considered reasonable determinations of fact to which courts must defer in later federal proceedings challenging the constitutionality of capital convictions and death sentences. The U.S. Supreme Court has requested that it be provided the full record of Hamm's case and is scheduled to confer about the case on September 26. It could issue an order as early as October 3, the first Monday of its Fall Term, on whether it will hear Hamm's appeal.
(A. Cohen, "The Death Penalty Case Where Prosecutors Wrote the Judge’s ‘Opinion’," The Marshall Project, June 19, 2016; A. Cohen, "Letting Prosecutors Write the Law," The Marshall Project, July 18, 2016.) See Arbitrariness.Tweet