Terry Lenamon on the Death Penalty : Lawyer & Attorney Terry Lenamon on Capital Punishment Defense, Death Penalty Trials & Appeals | Law Firm

Late last month, we published a list of Supreme Court precedent over at JD Supra, in a .pdf format (Terry Lenamon’s List of Major United States Supreme Court Death Penalty Cases:Furman v. Georgia (1972) to Harbison v. Bell (2009)). 

Suddenly, over at Twitter, my fellow Tweeters @Joachim65 (aka Joachim Kubler of Germany, blogging at Todesstrafe USA (use GoogleTranslate!)) and @TheOptimistClub (founded by Kathy Brown, blogging at The Optimist Club) had already found the list, and were spreading the word in the Twitter Universe.  @OdellaWilson was giving @TerryLenamon praise (wow) and things were getting Retweeted ... which was all very amazing and complimentary and wonderful. 

So, looks like this list may be helpful, right?  Good!  Here it is again, placed here in the blog, where it's searchable and NOT in a .pdf format, however helpful that might be.  For instance, the links to the full opinions show up in the .pdf format, but maybe they are easier to use in the blog site (maybe?). 

For a full search on all things death penalty by the U.S. Supreme Court (or any other topic, for that matter), Cornell University provides a great search tool with its online library.  Cases are even divided into majority opinion vs dissents, etc.  Very handy. 

Now, here's the list.  Caveat:  it's not every case where the High Court deals with capital punishment, nor is it the only list that deals with US Supreme Court cases on the death penalty.  What is hopefully helpful here is that this list: (1) culls out the overturned cases and (2) provides the links to the full opinions so you can jump there to read the case itself. 

Terry Lenamon’s List of Major United States Supreme Court Death Penalty Cases:Furman v. Georgia (1972) to Harbison v. Bell (2009)

In 1972, the United States Supreme Court effectively halted the death penalty in this country with its opinion in Furman v. Georgia. However, the moratorium was short-lived and four years later, the government was again free to kill its citizens as punishment for certain crimes. 

 

For easy reference, here are the major High Court’s decisions dealing with the death penalty from Furman forward (excluding those that have been overruled by later precedent), hyperlinked to the full opinion:

 

1972

Furman v. Georgia

Requires consistency in execution, i.e., consistency in the states’ application of death.

 

1976

Gregg v. Georgia

Reaffirmed use of the death penalty after the states had passed legislation that met the Furman requirements.

 

1977

Coker v. Georgia

Under 8th Amendment, death penalty is not acceptable (i.e., constitutional) punishment for crime of rape of an adult woman when murder not involved, i.e., the victim is not killed. Effectively set the standard that capital punishment should only be imposed when the underlying crime involved the death of another. 

 

1978

Lockett v. Ohio

Sentencing authorities cannot be limited to a list of factors when deciding on imposing capital punishment; constitutionally, they are to have the ability to consider all mitigating factors.

 

1982

Enmund v. Florida

No death penalty for someone who does participate in a felony but not involved in killing – no intent to kill, no attempt (successful or not) to do so.

 

1985

Glass v. Louisiana

Death penalty by electric chair (electrocution) is constitutionally acceptable.

 

1986

Ford v. Wainwright

No death penalty for insane persons.

 

1987

Tison v. Arizona

Death penalty acceptable for defendant convicted of felony murder, who was a major participant and who shows an “extreme indifference to human life.”

 

1988

Lowenfield v. Phelps

State’s determination of which individuals are eligible for the death penalty can be done by statute (legislature decision) or by findings of aggravating circumstances (courtroom decision).

 

1988

Thompson v. Oklahoma

No Death Penalty for children who are 15 years old or younger at the time that the crime is committed.

 

1992

Morgan v. Illinois

In jury selection, the defense can challenge for cause anyone in the jury pool who says they would vote for death penalty in every case.

 

2002

Ring v. Arizona

Death Penalty cannot be imposed unless there is a jury (not judge) determination of the necessary aggravating factors because this is a part of the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial. (In 2004, Schriro v. Summerlin refused to apply this retroactively.)

 

2002

Atkins v. Virginia

No Death Penalty of mentally retarded defendants.

 

2004

Tennard v. Dretke

In capital punishment case, all mitigating factors must be considered in both the guilt phase and the penalty (sentencing) phase.

 

2005

Roper v. Simmons

No death penalty for anyone who was under 18 years old when the crime was committed, i.e., juvenile offenders.

 

2006

Oregon v. Guzek

It is constitutional for a judge to limit the sentencing phase evidence of a defendant’s innocence to that which was presented in the trial phase.

 

2006

Kansas v. Marsh

Death penalty can be imposed even though both mitigating and aggravating factors exist.

 

2006

House v. Bell

On appeal, post-conviction DNA forensic evidence can be presented in death penalty cases.

 

2008

Baze v. Rees

Lethal injection (three drug) method acceptable form of execution.

 

2008

Kennedy v. Louisiana

No death penalty for any crime "where the victim's life was not taken."

 

2009

Harbison v. Bell

When the state refuses to provide habeas counsel in post-conviction clemency proceedings, the constitutional right to counsel mandates that federally-funded legal counsel be provided to indigent death row inmates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

All this morning, there have been almost minute by minute updates on the web regarding whether or not the appellate attorneys feverishly fighting to stop this morning's execution of Kenneth Biros by the State of Ohio will be successful. 

Biros' attorneys are literally banging on the doors of the United States Supreme Court, asking that the highest court in the land act immediately to stay the execution of Ken Biros -- who is set to die this morning  (the execution is scheduled for 11 am) unless something BIG happens. 

And this needs to be stopped.  We've already written here about all the reasons why.

The State of Ohio is about to execute a man in the same way that the vet down the street "executes" pets everyday - by a single, massive injection of a drug.  As we've posted about before, no one knows how a human being will react to this procedure.  It hasn't been scrunitized in the standard legal way -- Ohio is allowing Biros to be a guinea pig.  Will this be cruel and unusual?  We don't know.

The New York Times legal blog has periodic updates.  A local TV station in Ohio has a reporter at the prison.  The Tribune Chronicle in Lucasville is posting almost minute by minute events as they transpire.   

At 9:20 am, prison officials announced that the execution might be delayed - Ohio would wait until the United States Supreme Court ruled on the defense attorneys' last minute request. 

At 10:00 am, it was announced that the United States Supreme Court will not stop the killing of Kenneth Biros by an unvetted execution method. 

Ken Biros will die today. 

And the horror exists -- if this single injection method is later shown to be legally unacceptable as a method of executing humans, there will be no way to help Mr. Biros.  

May God have mercy on us all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (3)

In yesterday's New York Times, Professor Linda Greenhouse gives us a thought-provoking analysis of the "selective empathy" of the current U.S. Supreme Court as she compares the recent decisions in Porter v. McCollum (Porter lives) and Bobby v. Van Hook (VanHook dies).  After discussing in detail both opinions, Greenhouse concludes:

Setting the Porter and the Van Hook cases side by side, what strikes me is how similarly horrific the two men's childhoods were -- indeed, how common such childhoods were among the hundreds of death-row inmates whose appeals I have read over the years and, I have to assume, among the 3,300 people on death row today. It is fanciful to suppose that each of these defendants had lawyers who made the effort to dig up the details and offer these sorry life stories to the jurors who would weigh their fate.

I don't make that observation to excuse the crimes of those on death row, but only to underscore the anomaly of the mercy the court bestowed this week on one of that number. Am I glad that a hapless 77-year-old man won't be put to death by the State of Florida? Yes, I am. Am I concerned about a Supreme Court that dispenses empathy so selectively? Also yes.

Those who represent defendants facing prosecutors arguing in courtrooms that the accused should die at the hands of the state undoubtedly understand Professor Greenhouse's acknowledgement that most folk setting on Death Row in this country have horrific personal histories.

The tragedy of Death Row goes far beyond the underlying crime and the suffering of the victim and the victim's loved ones - there's also the path woven through the past by the defendant to that fateful day when a crime was committed, a path with its own pain and shocking trauma. Porter's case typifies this, as does Van Hook's - and each of the Supreme Court opinions provide the details.

Comparing Porter and VanHook From a Criminal Defense Practitioner's Perspective

However, both these unanimous, per curiam decisions have more to tell us, the legal practitioners who have devoted our lives to the defense of individuals charged with capital crimes and facing the death penalty. In both opinions, the quality of the underlying representation of Van Hook and Porter were at issue. Both alleged ineffective assistance of counsel -- and it was upon this appellate point that the two cases reached the high court.

From this perspective, we must read Porter and Van Horn side by side without a focus upon the underlying facts of the crimes and instead ask ourselves if the minimally acceptable standard of representation was provided in each case. Without emotion. Lawyer to lawyer.

When this is done, and the examples provided by the Justices are considered (and they do give examples), then a disparity can be seen. A disparity that explains the different results in Porter and Van Horn in a way that a comparison of the crimes and the two condemned men cannot.  And it also explains how both opinions could have unanimous, per curiam results. 

Viewed in this way, Porter and Van Horn remind the criminal defense bar that each and every time a defense attorney undertakes the representation of a defendant in a case where the prosecutor is zealous to pursue the death penalty, there is nothing more important than what that defense lawyer does.

We, the attorneys defending against death, stand in the gap between life and death by our own level of care and attention to detail in the work that we do. Our focus cannot be upon the horror of our client's background (though we sympathize) nor with any public repulsion of the crime at issue and their sometimes disgust with us, as counsel, for defending our clientele.

Our focus must always be upon doing the absolute best job that we can in the defense of each and every case. It is our duty to review our own efforts to insure we are providing "effective assistance of counsel" long before any appellate court begins its review of any ineffectiveness.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Perhaps discussion of the November 30, 2009, opinion by the United States Supreme Court in Porter v. McCollum (08-10537) is best begun by reading the first paragraph of the opinion itself: 

Petititioner George Porter is a veteran who was both wounded and decorated for his active participation in two major engagements during the Korean War; his combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man.  His commanding officer's moving description of those two battles was only a fraction of the mitigating evidence that his counsel failed to discover or present during the penalty phase of his trial in 1988.

Of note, the opinion is short by Supreme Court standards (only 15 pages), it is also unsigned and per curiam. 

1.  It's a per curiam decision for the United States Supreme Court.  What's that telling us?

That this opinion is per curiam alone is worth some pondering.  Usually, the High Court has lots of paper with its results -- various justices writing their own explanations for the position they have taken on a case.  Here, there is just fifteen pages whose words speak for the entirety.  Consider Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98  (2000), another per curiam opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Florida case: it still had dissenting opinions. 

That Porter is per curiam is telling.  It's powerful.  PTSD in combat veterans is a mitigating factor that must be considered and respected by the states in death penalty cases. 

2.  Is Porter limited to its four corners?  The opinion doesn't read that way.

There are those that will argue that the Porter case is limited to the facts surrounding the crime for which George Porter, Jr. was convicted and it should not be considered as having a bigger impact.  Prosecutors will undoubtedly argue that the Porter case turned mainly on the specific facts involved in the trying of the defendant for the murder of his ex-girlfriend and her current boyfriend, and the actions (or lack thereof) by both the prosecution and the defense in that trial.  And it is true that the appellate arguments advanced by Porter are hinged upon ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, reading the opinion in its entirety, the Supreme Court appears to nip that challenge in the bud by its discussion of post traumatic stress disorder arising from combat.  Not only does the opinion point out that a medical expert testified that Porter's symptoms "...would 'easily' warrant a diagnosis ..." of PTSD, the opinion also references testimony given by Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric  Shinseki, where Mr. Shinseki testified that nearly 25% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seeking V.A. medical treatment were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Consider these words from the opinion:

Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did.  ... The relevance of Porter's extensive combat experience is not only that he served honorably under extreme hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on Porter.

The opinion doesn't limit itself to discussion of the circumstances of Porter's defense representation at trial, nor to Porter's own Korean combat trauma.  Its application simply cannot be wedged into a narrow application to George Porter's particular circumstance. 

3.  What happens now?

 First: George Porter, Jr. receives a new sentencing hearing, based upon an unanimous United States Supreme Court decision and while his conviction stands, the sentence of death does not.  Mr. Porter will not be executed by the State of Florida now. 

Second: Across the country criminal defense attorneys representing clients facing the death penalty must take heed that PTSD (at least for combat veterans) is a valid mitigating factor for which evidence must be investigated and fully presented as a legally recognized defense to the state's desire for capital punishment. 

The real debate is whether (or when) the Porter PTSD defense can be applied not only to combat veterans but to all those who suffer from severe, disabling post traumatic stress disorder arising from life-threatening events (e.g. victims of kidnapping, torture, rape, etc.).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Today, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a ruling that no one is going to be executed in the State of Kentucky until things are done by the book regarding the lethal injection killing method.  The high court set no deadline on when capital punishment might resume in Kentucky, either.  Its formal opinion is already published online at the court's official web site.

The story starts with Ralph Baze

Ralph Baze sits on Kentucky's Death Row after being convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection for the murder of Sheriff Steve Bennett and Deputy Arthur Briscoe of Powell County, Kentucky, back in 1992 while the lawmen were trying to arrest him.  (Baze unsuccessfully urged self-defense.)   After his conviction, Baze joined with fellow Death Row inmate Thomas Clyde Bowling, Jr. in a constitutional fight.

Baze and Bowling both argued by appeal that execution of someone with the three drug "cocktail" established by Kentucky law (and used here in Florida, as described in our earlier series) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment. 

Baze v. Rees (Baze's appeal) was heard by the United States Supreme Court, and in April 2008, that court ruled that the three drug cocktail did not violate the constitution.  Ginsburg and Souter dissented.

Baze did not stop there.  He then urged a state appeal (joining with Bowling) challenging state procedure, and the Kentucky Supreme Court has heard him. 

What the Kentucky Supreme Court Ruled Today

In today's opinion, the state high court has found that the legal steps that are taken when Kentucky puts a condemned man (or woman) to death through the use of its three drug cocktail have to be specified -- spelled out -- in a state regulation.  

Writing for the majority, Justice Abramson states, ""[t]his court cannot ignore the publication and public hearing requirements set forth in Kentucky statutes."  The opinion then orders the Kentucky Department of Corrections "...to adopt as an administrative regulation all portions of the protocol implementing the lethal injection statute...." 

This will take time.  An adminstrative regulation doesn't just get voted upon by some group -- due process requires much more than that.  What the Kentucky Supreme Court has done is to require the agency to write a regulation and then formally debut it as proposed law.  Then, the public gets a say in the matter as there is a set amount of time for public contributions on the language of the proposed regulation.  Things are discussed, edits may happen.  And only then is the proposal taken to Kentucky's Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee, an arm of the state legislature that votes to adopt/reject the proposal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Virginia executes more people in this country than any other state than Texas, so the statistics seem to sway us toward a prediction that Governor Tim Kaine will allow the upcoming execution of John Muhammad, the DC Sniper. 

And Kaine is the only barrier betweeen John Muhammad and death. 

That's because the United States Supreme Court officially declined to hear Mr. Muhammad's appeal yesterday -- and what is unusual about that is they did so long before anyone expected them to do so.  As Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor explained in a joint statement authored by Stevens, under standard operating procedure the high court would have taken this matter under consideration during its November 24th Justices' conference. 

By declining to stay the execution in order to maintain that SOP Justice Stevens wrote, "...we have allowed Virginia to truncate our deliberative process on a matter -- involving a death row inmate -- that demands the most careful attention." 

Importantly, the Justices' statement points out a crucial problem in this case, something of which we all need to be aware:  Virginia scheduled John Muhammad's execution before all of his legal avenues had been exhausted. 

That's right -- Virginia scheduled a man for death before the legal processes had been completed, those legal safeguards that are in place to insure that no legal errors had been made.  To quote the Statement, " '[t]his case highlights once again the perversity of executing inmates before their appeals process has been fully concluded."

Perversity indeed. 

We're watching, Governor Kaine.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Representing clients facing the sentence of dying by the government's hand for crimes they have allegedly committed is what I do.  And, while I represent clients in both phases of a death penalty case, I am particularly known for my work in representing defendants during the sentencing phase. 

So, I'm watching Wood v. Allen with particular interest as it winds its way through review by the highest court in the land.

By way of background, a man named Holly Wood was convicted in an Alabama court of killing his girlfriend.   He was sentenced to die for this act.  Mr. Wood was represented by defense counsel, and Mr. Wood is now arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial because one of his trial lawyers failed to introduce key evidence during the sentencing phase of the trial. 

What was that crucial evidence?  It was evidence of a mitigating factor to be considered in Mr. Wood's sentencing -- that he was mentally retarded. 

Holly Wood had three lawyers during the trial, but like many death penalty cases the defense duties were divided, and it's uncontested here that the lawyer responsible for the sentencing phase of the case was a novice.   And here is where things get complicated.

As Mr. Wood's case manuevered through the waters of the state appellate process, his appellate counsel argued that this novice attorney did not provide adequate representation -- and all the state reviewing courts failed to agree.  Instead, they held that Wood's more experienced counsel intentionally withheld the mental retardation evidence as part of their overall trial strategy. 

Entering the federal appellate system under a writ for habeas corpus under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the federal district court went Wood's way and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, opining that that the AEDPA limits review to "...whether there is evidence to support the state courts' findings" and the Alabama court's fact finding was reasonable since Wood failed to show that the defense decision not to present the evidence was not strategic.   Of course, there was a strong dissent which wisely pointed out that the Eleventh Circuit opinion was based upon nothing but "pure speculation" that not presenting key mitigating evidence was a "strategic decision."

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At this point, it's pretty late in the legal game for John Muhammad, known as The Washington Sniper.  Tried and sentenced to death for the killing of Dean Meyers, the victim of a sniper's bullet at a Manassas, Virginia gas station in 2002, Muhammad has already exhausted appellate avenues aside from the United States Supreme Court.  His attorneys have announced they'll be filing an appeal with the Supreme Court on or before November 3rd.

Asking for Clemency Now Rather than Later

Usually, going to the Governor with a clemency request wouldn't happen until all the court remedies had been exhausted.  With the Washington Sniper, the strategy is different.  Already, his attorneys have met with Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine -- and they've shown the governor a video prepared to support their position.

Mental Illness as a Bar to the Death Penalty

There is already precedent from the United States Supreme Court (Ford v. Wainwright) holding that the mentally ill cannot be condemned to die because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 

Why urge clemency with the Governor's Office now?

At the Devine, Connell, Sheldon & Flood website, defense counsel have posted their arguments in the unusual clemency request: 

• 1.  a juror has said they would not have voted for death if they had known of Muhammad's mental illness; 


• 2.  experts report that the Washington Sniper suffers from severe mental illness, and this is documented by his brain damage, brain dysfunction, and other neurological deficits as well as his psychotic and delusional behavior; 


• 3.  he may additionally suffer from Gulf War Syndrome. 

According to media reports, the Governor hasn't been that open to considering clemency for the Washington Sniper -- he's said so, and his office has also leaned on the standard operating procedure of clemency considerations occuring only after judicial review is finished.  

It's an interesting and aggressive tactic that the Sniper's defense counsel is taking.  For all of us that oppose the death penalty, we're rooting for 'em.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John Marek died last Wednesday due to lethal injection at the hands of the State of Florida.  His hard-working defense attorney -- who had filed last minute appeals to the Supreme Court trying to keep Marek alive -- didn't go to watch.  Who can blame him. 

It was only a couple of weeks ago that we posted on the eleventh hour efforts to save Marek's life.   There was evidence that he wasn't the killer in this case.  There were procedural concerns regarding recusal of a lower court judge.  There is always the bigger picture -- the controversy over the constitutionality of the death penalty as well as the all-too-often forgotten concept of mercy. 

No matter.  There was no reconsideration of Marek's case by any of the powers that be and the sentence of punishment by death was carried out.   On August 19, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Marek's application for a stay of execution so they could consider his legal arguments.   And, minutes before the execution, it was confirmed that the Governor of Florida would not come forward to stop things. 

John Marek's Death was not obviously horrific, as other lethal injection executions have been.

It is reported that John Marek did not twitch or convulse or otherwise evidence any improprieties during the 13 minutes it took him to die.  Of course, we've already discussed how the Florida drug combo actually paralyzes the body, so observers wouldn't know if Marek was alive and aware for most of those 13 minutes but unable to move or speak ... or if he was in pain.  Many argue that the lethal injection method of killing someone is easier on the observers but may be very cruel to the dying inmate. 

Marek's Last Meal and Last Words

John Marek had a lettuce, tomato, and bacon sandwich (mayo, wheat bread) with onion rings and french fries -- and a Dr. Pepper -- for his last meal.   His last words were of his Christian faith, as he spoke "Jesus remember us sinners," followed by the Lord's Prayer --- and it is always ironic to remember that Christ, too, suffered execution by the government those many years ago. 

Marek lived in a small Death Row cell for 26 years. 

May he, and his loved ones, and the loved ones of murder victim Adela Marie Simmons, -- and that hard-working defense attorney who tried so hard and so well -- all find peace. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John Marek's attorneys are fighting hard to stop the State of Florida  from killing their client.

Today, they filed an appeal with the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, to try and stop the execution of John Richard Marek.  With the Florida Supreme Court ruling that it will not hear anything further in this case, Marek is left with only the U.S. Supreme Court and the Governor of Florida between him and an otherwise certain execution.  (Read docket notice of Marek's Motion to Stay Execution here -- Justice Thomas is assigned to this request. )

What arguments can Marek possibly make to the U.S. Supreme Court now -- over 25 years after the crime occurred for which he was convicted, and within two weeks of his scheduled execution?  Lots of people don't understand the importance of the appellate process in death penalty matters, but Marek's case gives us some idea of how vital appeals can be.  When the government is about to kill one of its own citizens, then the courts must insure that the government is not violating any legal rights in doing so. 

And it appears that Marek has some valid legal arguments to make, such as:   

Evidence that Marek Was Not the Killer

It is not contested at this point that Marek was present at the scene where Adella Simmons was murdered one night on Dania Beach, back in 1983.  However, there is evidence that Marek did not kill the woman that he and his buddy, Ray Wigley, picked up on the Turnpike where her car had broken down. 

The evidence comes from Wigley himself.  Seems he admitted to killing the woman to several folk while he was incarcerated.  Those inmates have come forward with testimony that Ray Wigley -- who was not sentenced to death, as Marek was -- told people on several occasions that he murdered Ms. Simmons, not his pal Marek.  Wigley himself cannot testify.  Wigley is dead.

Past Appellate Arguments Regarding Recusal of Trial Court Judge 

Part of Marek's earlier arguments have been based upon the issue of when a judge should recuse himself.  (For those interested, the Reply Brief filed by Marek's counsel before the Florida Supreme Court is online for viewing.)  This is an issue recently addressed by the US Supreme Court. 

In a far-reaching decision released this past March,  Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. [08-22] (5-4 opinion),  the high court recognizes that due process is violated when someone is before a trial court judge has "...had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent...." and that judge does not recuse himself (withdraw from presiding over the matter).  Caperton has been criticized for not giving enough direction on when a trial judge should and should not recuse himself (as the dissents themselves discuss), therefore judicial recusal is a topic in Marek's appeal which may be of interest to the Justices. 

What is Before the US Supreme Court Right Now Regarding John Marek

First things first.  Justice Thomas is overseeing the Motion to Stay Execution.  Of course, halting the killing scheduled in 12 days is the first priority.  Afterwards, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be heard.  The deadline for the State of Florida to respond is September 7, 2009.   As of this posting, briefing was not available for review.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The news has been filled this week with the questioning of the Latina who may well be our next U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and some may be wondering why all the hoopla. Well, let's look back to 1972, where one single justice's vote successfully halted capital punishment in this country for four years.

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)

This was a case of a robbery gone bad. Billy Furman was robbing a house in the middle of the night and the homeowner woke up. The homeowner challenged the burglar, and ended up dead. Billy Furman gave two versions of what happened: in one statement, he was trying to escape, tripped, and his gun went off, killing the homeowner. In another statement, Furman shot blind into the darkness, trying to get away, and inadvertently shot the victim.

Either way, someone died during the commission of a felony and under Georgia law, Billy could die for this. And after a jury trial, Bill Furman was sentenced to death for killing the person whose home he was trying to rob.

The case made its way through the appellate courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Furman's lawyers' question to the high court: does imposing the death penalty constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?

One page opinion - death penalty was unconstitutional

After reading briefs from the Furman team as well as the State of Georgia and various interested parties in their "friend of the court" briefs (amicus curaie), a majority vote of 5 to 4 held that the death penalty violated the United States Constitution.

One vote, by a single justice was the deciding factor. A very, very important swing vote.

Lots of written explanations by the Justices

Of course, that one page opinion didn't get filed of record all by itself. The justices wrote to justify their positions on the vote, filing concurrences with the majority opinion and formal dissents to the outcome.

Every single justice wrote his own explanation of why he voted the way he did in Furman v. Georgia:

Justice William Brennan voted yes, believing that the death penalty was unconstitional, period. "...Ours would indeed be a simple task were we required merely to measure a challenged punishment against those that history has long condemned. That narrow and unwarranted view of the [Cruel and Unusual Punishment] Clause, however, was left behind with the 19th century. Our task today is more complex. We know "that the words of the [Clause] are not precise, and that their scope is not static." We know, therefore, that the Clause "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." ... That knowledge, of course, is but the beginning of the inquiry."

Justice Thurgood Marshall agreed with Brennan. "...The elasticity of the constitutional provision under consideration presents dangers of too little or too much self-restraint. Hence, we must proceed with caution to answer the question presented. By first examining the historical derivation of the Eighth Amendment and [408 U.S. 238, 316] the construction given it in the past by this Court, and then exploring the history and attributes of capital punishment in this country, we can answer the question presented with objectivity and a proper measure of self-restraint. Candor is critical to such an inquiry. ... Candor compels me to confess that I am not oblivious to the fact that this is truly a matter of life and death. Not only does it involve the lives of these three petitioners, but those of the almost 600 other condemned men and women in this country currently awaiting execution. While this fact cannot affect our ultimate decision, it necessitates that the decision be free from any possibility of error."

Justice Potter Stewart didn't believe that the way that the death penalty was imposed was constitutional. He voted yes. "I simply conclude that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed."

Justice William Douglas had problems with an apparent arbitrary imposition of the death penalty and on those grounds, found capital punishment to be unconstitutional. He also voted yes. "The generality of a law inflicting capital punishment is one thing. What may be said of the validity of a law on the books and what may be done with the law in its application do, or may, lead to quite different conclusions. It would seem to be incontestable that the death penalty inflicted on one defendant is "unusual" if it discriminates against him by reason of his race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices."

Justice Byron White agreed with Justice Douglas on the arbitrariness concern. Another yes vote. "The narrower question to which I address myself concerns the constitutionality of capital punishment statutes under which (1) the legislature authorizes the imposition of the death penalty for murder or rape; (2) the legislature does not itself mandate the penalty in any particular class or kind of case (that is, legislative will is not frustrated if the penalty is never imposed), but delegates to judges or juries the decisions as to those cases, if any, in which the penalty will be utilized; and (3) judges and juries have ordered the death penalty with such infrequency that the odds are now very much against imposition and execution of the penalty with respect to any convicted murderer or rapist. It is in this context that we must consider whether the execution of these petitioners would violate the Eighth Amendment."

Justice William Reinquist voted no. "The Court's judgments today strike down a penalty that our Nation's legislators have thought necessary since our country was founded."

Justice Burger voted no. "If we were possessed of legislative power, I would either join with [Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall] ... or, at the very least, restrict the use of capital punishment to a small category of the most heinous crimes. Our constitutional inquiry, however, must be divorced from personal feelings as to the morality and efficacy of the death penalty, and be confined to the meaning and applicability of the uncertain language of the Eighth Amendment."

Justice Blackmun voted no. "...I trust the Court fully appreciates what it is doing when it decides these cases the way it does today. Not only are the capital punishment laws of 39 States and the District of Columbia struck down, but also all those provisions of the federal statutory structure that permit the death penalty apparently are voided."

Justice Powell voted no. "It is the judgment of five Justices that the death penalty, as customarily prescribed and implemented in this country today, offends the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. The reasons for that judgment are stated in five separate opinions, expressing as many separate rationales. In my view, none of these opinions provides a constitutionally adequate foundation for the Court's decision."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Around twenty years ago, a cop was gunned down in Savannah and Troy Davis was caught and convicted for the crime. Nineteen years old at the time, he was sentenced to die, and he has watched all this time pass - 1989 to today - from a small, bleak Death Row cell over in Georgia.

Teen Sent to Die Without Any Physical Evidence

Davis has consistently maintained he is innocent of this crime. Over the years, the evidence used against him has slipped away: 7 of the 9 witnesses who testified Davis did it have changed their minds and recanted their testimony. Oh, and there never was any physical evidence linking Troy Davis to the crime. It's all eyewitness testimony.

No gun. No bullets. No blood or bone or anything else to use DNA testing on - like they seem to always have in CSI or NCIS.

One of Two Remaining Un-recanting Witnesses Is Rumored to be the Real Killer

Meanwhile, there has been some witness identification of another man as being the shooter - a man who is still free, and has been free all the while that Troy Davis has lived his life behind bars. And, rumors have it that this shooter just happens to be one of the two remaining witnesses that pointed their fingers at Troy Davis and didn't recant later. Wow.

Why the Troy Davis Case?

We're visiting the Troy Davis case this week, because the U.S. Supreme Court isn't. The high court has just taken off on its summer vacation, and before they hung up their "gone fishing" sign, a clerk took the time to notify Davis's attorney that they'll get around to deciding his case when they come back to work in September.

Which means that Troy Davis, who has been through the wringer more than once already (he was two hours away from being executed in September 2008 when the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the killing), must wait some more.

The U.S. Supreme Court has Waffled

Last September, the U.S. Supreme Court halted Troy's execution. Then - less than two weeks later - the Supremes decided they wouldn't intervene, and released the hounds as it were for Georgia to proceed with the execution. The cavalry appeared in the form of a federal appeals court in Georgia, which granted a temporary stay of execution and let Davis have the chance to continue his appellate fight.

By its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court last fall was telling Georgia that it would not consider the legal issue of whether or not it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty when new evidence has been brought forth that shows the inmate's innocence. (This doesn't seem like a hard question to answer, but they refused it anyway.)

With Troy Davis back before them, Georgia considered the possibility that there might be evidence that proved Davis to be innocent, and then denied his request for a new trial - but was nice enough to hold off on capital punishment to let Troy Davis return to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oh. The Georgia Pardons and Parole Board held hearings, too, and even interviewed Davis and the witnesses all over again ...and then denied clemency. Don't know much about this Board, and apparently no one else does either. No records are made; their hearings aren't open to the public.

Davis is black, the cop was white - and Davis is asking for a new trial, not a free pass

Did I fail to mention before this that Davis is black, the cop was white? Well, some folk think this fact is important.

Did I fail to point out that all Troy Davis is asking for is just the chance to have a trial where this exculpatory evidence can be brought before a factfinder? He's not asking for mercy, he's asking for justice.

Troy Davis has some very big supporters in his corner. Like the Pope.

And lots of people think that Troy Davis deserves another trial, to have a chance to bring forth this new evidence. Over 60,000 U.S. citizens have signed a petition asking for just that ... and there's been a lot of public outcry as well, from some people that you may recognize, like:

1. The Pope. Yes, Pope Benedict XVI knows about Troy Davis's case.
2. The European Union. Yes, all 27 countries have cohesively offered their support.
3. Desmond Tutu of South Africa, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
4. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.

Laura Moye of Amnesty International has been quoted as saying that this "gone fishing" delay of the U.S. Supreme Court is good, because it gives Troy Davis and his supporters more time to get publicity for his plight: to let people know that an innocent man is facing execution over in Georgia if nothing happens to stop it.

So, here's my little bit of publicity for Troy Davis. Please, spread the word.

For more information, please visit: Take Action for Troy

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

Last month, the pending case of Michael Bies was discussed here - Bies, held to have an IQ of 63, had been sentenced to die by the State of Ohio and advocates for Bies took his case to the highest court in the land in protest. Testimony had been provided that Michael Bies was functionally mentally retarded.

We don't execute the mentally retarded in this country; this has been held to violate the Eighth Amendment as being cruel and unusual punishment in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Supreme Court Rules That Bies' Case Goes Back to Ohio for Further Proceedings

Nevertheless, today the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that the Bies case can return to Ohio for another trial on the appropriate sentence for his crime. (Bies has been found guilty of the kidnap and murder of a 10-year-old boy.) Why? The Court has found that the federal appellate court was too speedy in throwing out capital punishment for Michael Bies because the federal court acted before the 2002 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject.

"Mental retardation was not a conclusive or necessary determination in any Ohio court proceeding to date," according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Attorneys for Michael Bies will return to the Ohio courtroom, where another sentencing trial will be had. At that proceeding, they'll argue once more that Bies must be spared the death penalty because of his mental retardation - and the prosecution will once again fight for the death of Michael Bies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There was a time in the mid-twentieth century when this country had essentially suspended the death penalty. It didn't last long.

First, in 1972, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Furman v. Georgia, opening the doors for capital punishment to be an accepted form of punishment should a state seek to impose it upon a defendant. In Furman, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the death penalty to be imposed at the same time that a defendant was found guilty. Deciding the penalty of death would have to take place only after a guilty verdict was announced.

Second, in the 1976 case of Gregg v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that capital punishment, in and of itself, was not in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it was legal to kill citizens as punishment for certain crimes in this country, should the state choose to do so. They just had to follow the two-prong trial phase of guilt/punishment established in Furman.

Many state statutes were unconstitutional under Furman, and if a state wanted to impose capital punishment as allowed by Gregg, a new law would have to be enacted that comported with Furman's requirements. It fell upon the Great State of Florida to be the first state to act in accordance with the Furman decision, and to reinstitute the death penalty with a newly written statute in August 1972.

Florida's 30 Year Anniversary

And while Florida did commute over 90 cases because of the Furman decision, Florida was also the first state to impose the penalty of death since 1964 - a moratorium of 15 years - when in 1979, John Arthur Spenkelink was executed by electric chair ("Old Sparky") in 1979.

There has been some worthwhile media coverage of this thirty year milestone, and of particular interest is:

1. Coverage by the Associated Press' Ron Wood, where interviews of Richard Dugger, the assistant warden of the Florida State Prison at the time of the Spenkelink Execution, as well as David Kendall, Spenkelink's attorney - and eyewitness to the execution, are provided. There is some worthwhile discussion of death by electrocution, including some graphic details of the botched executions involving Florida's electric chair, known as "Old Smokey."

2. Naples Daily News' Jeff Weiner's article focusing upon the ten Florida Death Row inmates pertaining to Southwest Florida (Lee and Collier County). Note the length of time that these individuals have been facing death, and consider once again what daily life on Death Row is like (see 04/04/09 post, "What it's Really Like on Florida's Death Row.").

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I have real concerns about the constitutionality of the current means of capital punishment here in Florida - and really, in most of the country today. And it's not just me - many Death Penalty Qualified Defense attorneys here in Florida share the same concern regarding execution by lethal injection.

Why?

There is a strong argument that execution by lethal injection violates both the Florida Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. In the next series of scholarly posts that appear here on the blog every Friday, we'll be looking at this issue.

The State and Federal Constitutions forbid foreseeable and unnecessary pain in the execution of an individual.

Much of the language that you will be seeing here is language that commonly appears in motions filed by counsel representing defendants who have been sentenced to death by the State of Florida. It's a solid and sturdy argument against the use of lethal injection, and there are many attorneys, legal scholars, professors, sociologists, and other professionals, who stand on this position:

Both the Florida and the U.S. Constitutions forbid the infliction of unnecessary pain -- that is, any pain that could reasonably be avoided -- in the execution of a sentence of death. The courts have ruled that the infliction of a severe punishment by the state cannot comport with human dignity when it is unnecessary and nothing more than the pointless infliction of suffering. Furthermore, [p]unishments are held to be cruel when they involve . . . a lingering death. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447 (1890); see also Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 125 S.Ct. 2117, 2122,158 L.Ed. 2d 924 (2004).

A punishment is particularly constitutionally offensive - and therefore, illegal -- if it involves the foreseeable infliction of suffering. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 273 (1973). Such things as (1) the probable length of time the condemned remains conscious of the process; (2) the physical or psychological pain he or she suffers during this period; and (3) the time it takes for death to occur must all be taken into consideration in determining whether a means of execution violates the constitution. See Fierro v. Gomez, 865 F. Supp. 1387, 1413 (N.D. Cal. 1994), aff'd, 77 F.3d 301, 308 (9th Cir. 1996), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 918 (1996).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Monday, the Supreme Court heard argument in the Bies case (see 04/27/09 post), and the very next day issued its opinion in Cone v. Bell, 555 U.S. ___ (2009), both capital punishment cases where the defendant argued a diminished capacity of some sort. In today's case, there was an intentional hiding of the ball by the State and a definite due process problem.

Gary Cone was a known drug addict who murdered two people.

It is undisputed that Gary Cone was a Vietnam veteran who returned home to Memphis, Tennessee, and failed to cope well with civilian life. One Saturday morning in 1980, Gary Cone robbed a jewelry store - obviously, not very well - and was promptly pursued by local police in what turned into a high speed chase.

Veering into a residential neighborhood, Cone abandoned his car and shot both a police officer and a Good Samaritan who tried to stop him as Cone fled on foot. On the hunt for another getaway car, Cone tried to carjack someone and when they refused to give them the keys, he tried to shoot them, too, only to find he was out of bullets. By this time, helicopters were flying overhead and the scene was escalating to a frantic pace. (You've seen the reality TV shows like COPS, you can visualize these events.)

Somehow that Saturday afternoon, Cone got away. No one could find him. However, early the next morning, Gary Cone was still in the neighborhood - knocking on the door of an elderly couple, Shipley and Cleopatra Todd. He asked to use their phone; Cleo Todd refused and slammed the door on Cone. Cleo called the cops, and still Cone could not be found.

The tragedy occurred later that same day. Cone returned to the Todd home, forced himself into their house, and beat the two senior citizens to death before tearing their house apart. He shaved there, got himself to the Memphis airport, and was busted while robbing a drug store in Pompano Beach, Florida a couple of days later.

Vietnam Vet Cone Asserted an Insanity Defense - He Didn't Contest His Actions

Vietnam vet Gary Cone was arrested, tried, and convicted of the Todds' murder. He never challenged evidence that showed he committed these horrific acts. What he asserted as his defense was his mental illness: Cone's defense team brought forth evidence to show that Cone suffered from chronic amphetamine psychosis, a mental disorder caused by excessive drug abuse.

Experts testified that the drug use began while Cone was serving in Vietnam, where he was using "horrific" quantities of drugs while dealing with the bodies of dead soldiers. The mental illness caused by this drug use created a level of paranoia and a disorder including hallucinations that would keep Cone from understanding or being able to conform to everyday life and the boundaries imposed by Tennessee law.

In sum, the entirety of Cone's defense was mental illness. He was legally insane when the crimes were committed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

This morning, at 11:00 EST, oral arguments will begin before the United States Supreme Court on whether or not a federal appeals court (the 6th Circuit) interfered with a state court death penalty case where the defendant was found to be mentally retarded. And while that sounds very procedural and legalistic, whether or not Michael Bies will be executed by the State of Ohio is the real issue here.

The case, Bobby v. Bies (08-598), has the Solicitor General of Ohio, Benjamin C. Mizer, arguing for the warden. Professor John Blume, of Cornell Law School, is advocating for Michael Bies.

It's Already Been Decided that the Death Penalty Cannot Be Imposed Upon Mentally Retarded Individuals

Back in 2002, the Supreme Court already held that the execution of mentally retarded individuals violates the due process provisions of the Eighth Amendment (Atkins v. Virginia). Today, the High Court is looking at double jeopardy protections. Specifically, in the Bies case, the focus will be whether or not double jeopardy protects a defendant at a state (not federal) post-conviction hearing where mental competency is being assessed pursuant to Atkins, when the issue of the defendant's "borderline mental retardation" had already been recognized earlier, by the state supreme court.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Last week, over in a Chicago courtroom, Nathan Fields stood to hear Circuit Judge Vincent Gardenia find him not guilty of murder. Nathan Fields is 55 years old, and he's finally been cleared 23 years after he was sentenced to death by a notoriously corrupt Illinois judge.

What happened in Nathan Fields' case?

The truth has come to light, and it has been shown that the trial court judge in Fields' initial trial accepted a $10,000 bribe in the case. Judge Tom Mahoney actually took the money to find Fields and his codefendant not guilty, but apparently Mahoney got nervous that he was about to be caught. So, he returned the bribe to its source, went ahead and found both men guilty of a double murder, and sentenced them both to death.

Nathan Fields Spent 7 Years on Death Row and Awaited Retrial for 11 Years

Nathan Fields was granted a new trial in 1998, and he was released pending retrial in 2003 when a fellow Death Row inmate put up his bail. That Death Row inmate who put up the money for Fields to walk free pending full exoneration is a man named Aaron Patterson. He's still on Death Row.

Patterson's generosity allowed Fields to be free in Chicago, with his family, after serving seven years on Illinois' Death Row. Still, it was over ten years before Fields' case came before another judge and his name was cleared of the murder charge.

What are his plans now?

Nathan Fields plans on taking a vacation with his family - he's never seen the ocean or the mountains, he's told reporters. He also plans on opening a construction company with his friend Aaron Patterson - although right now, Aaron Patterson remains behind bars.

Judge Tom Mahoney Fixed Murder Trials for Money

These are all facts that have been established. Judge Mahoney was caught for his evildoing, tried, and found guilty of conspiracy, racketeering, extortion, and obstructing justice in April 1993. Thomas Mahoney spent over 12 years behind bars before he died at the age of 83.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Due process under the law has been constitutionally protected since our nation began, although the phrase gets tossed around quite a bit these days without much concern as to its real importance.

Due process is protected by the 5th (federal) and 14th (state) Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, although it is a principle with origins in the Magna Carta. In that historic document, England's King John promised that "...[n]o free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

King John signed the Magna Carta over 790 years ago. You'd think that due process of law would be pretty much settled into a traditional, solid role in our society by now. Particularly so, when it comes to those officials in positions of authority. But if you think that, you'd be wrong.

Due Process of Law is endangered in this country.

Never has our sacred right to due process under the law been more endangered than it is today. And no - I'm not about to delve into the current Florida case concerning a young woman awaiting trial for the murder of her child.

Instead, I'm looking over at our sister state, Texas, and what's been going on over there since the afternoon of September 26, 2007.

Texas Chief Justice Faces Criminal Charges, Civil Trial, and Impeachment Arising From Death Penalty Case

Criminal charges were recently filed against Sharon Keller, the Chief Justice of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by Texans for Public Justice for her actions on the day that Michael Richard was executed by lethal injection. (In Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest court for all criminal matters; the state divides its civil and criminal caseloads, and has a separate high court, the Texas Supreme Court, which hears all civil matters as the state court of last resort.)

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

This month, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear a well-watched Florida case, Thompson v. McNeil (08-7369), where William Lee Thompson, sentenced to death in a Florida court back in 1976, requested their consideration of the question: does extended delay of the sentence of death amount to cruel (if not unusual) punishment and therefore violate the 8th Amendment?

Well, the High Court did fail to grant writ (opinion), but that doesn't mean we don't have a lot to consider from the opinion that did spring forth. Let's ponder the following:

Justice John Paul Stevens' Statement

First, I've read that Justice John Paul Stevens issued a dissent in this case; however, technically it was not a dissent but a statement. And, a statement that conforms to his longstanding position that the the death penalty is wrong. (Stevens already called for an end to the death penalty.)

In it, Stevens wrote, "[o]ur experience during the past three decades has demonstrated that delays in state-sponsored killings are inescapable and that executing defendants after such is unacceptably cruel," to which Justice Stephen Breyer gave his support in a formal dissent from the denial of certiorari.

Justice Stephen Breyer's Dissent

In his dissent, Breyer went into the appellate pathways that the Williamson case has taken over the past 30+ years, including such considerations as the fact that Williamson's spent over half his life on Death Row while the appeals have taken a life all their own, and the reality that Williamson's accomplice - who might have been more culpable than Williamson in the underlying crime - was not sentenced to death. Interesting point.

Justice Clarence Thomas' Concurrence

Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, wrote his own concurrence to the Court's denial of certiorari. In it, Thomas opined ""[i]t is the crime and not the punishment imposed by the jury or the delay in execution that was 'unacceptably cruel, ..." and thereafter provided extensive details on the underlying crime for which Thompson was convicted to support his position. (It is not disputed that the crime for which Thompson was convicted was shocking.)

Why Isn't This Cruel - If Not Unusual? Oh, and What About the Budget?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks