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 In-Depth Look at the Law: Does the Florida Death Penalty by Lethal Injection Violate the Constitution?

I try to avoid personal posting here, because my intent is to provide legal information that deals with capital punishment in this country today, for the use of both laymen and lawyers. In fact, soon I will be adding precedent and statutes and all sorts of reference links. Make things available that I think are helpful, informative, and best of all – free and accessible online 24/7.

But we’ve just moved into new offices, and I’ve got a nice view, the kind that only Miami can provide, and there’s still the smell of new carpeting. I set at my solid, wooden desk — the one that started with me when I first started practicing law and like me, it’s a little banged up with the passage of time. (My wife wants me to get a new one. I like this old, trusty desk with not enough drawers.)

And as I look out over the expanse outside these windows, I think about where I sit and where I live – in Florida, in the United States, and I’m humbled. I am humbled by the beauty of the horizon; I am humbled by the enormity of our country and all that we stand for; and I’m humbled that I’ve been allowed to advocate not just for the accused, but for those who are facing a sentence of death if convicted of the crimes for which they have been charged. Can there be any greater duty for an attorney of law?

I’m honored to serve as the advocate for these defendants, and I’m especially dedicated to serving them since they are unknown and indigent (the legal term for poor), facing a justice system all too ready to kill them in name of punishment. To that end, today I want to publish their names here on this blog.

These are the criminal defendants facing a sentence of death for whom I have the honor of defending in a Florida court of law:

Jeremy Sly
077000553F

Kemar Johnston
06CF19906B

Grady Nelson
F-05-000846

Ariel Hernandez
F-04-019972

Demetrius Cooper
F-04-015209

Vivens Delorme
07-20534-CR-UNGARO

Emmanuel Jean
F06-023563-A

Thomas Pennington
F-07-025418

Frantzy Jean Marie
F-07-31111D

Walter Sapp
F-91-000880.

Other mothers murder their children because the children are not wanted or are resented. One such mother, Susan Smith, strapped her two small boys, a fourteen month old and a three year old, into the backseat of her car, rolled up the windows, and pushed the car into a lake.

She first claimed her two sons were taken in a car jacking by an unidentified black man. Smith concocted elaborate lies in the national media, pleading for the safe return of her two children. Later, Smith told police she intended to kill herself, but changed her mind at the last minute and jumped from the car.

In fact, her father had committed suicide, and Susan had attempted suicide at least once in her life. Her stepfather sexually abused her, with whom she continued to have a sexual relationship once she was an adult. Smith also had an affair with her boss and craved a relationship with him. When he ended the affair because he did not want the complication of children in his life, she became desperate to rid herself of her children.

Susan Smith was convicted of two counts of murder. However, on July 28, 1995, a South Carolina jury rejected the idea of sentencing a young mother to death for drowning her two sons. She was sentenced to life imprisonment instead. Continue Reading In Depth Look: Filicide is Different – 4

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 US Supreme Court Finds Prosecution Intentionally Violated Due Process in 20 Yr Old Death Penalty Case

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 Will a mentally retarded man, Michael Bies, be put to death in Ohio?

So far, we have three posts (03/27/09; 04/16/09; 04/20/09) that deal with the role of a judge – at both the trial and appellate levels – in a death penalty case. There’s a lot more to consider about the impact that judges have in death penalty considerations, but before we delve further into their role, it seems wise to bring the attorneys into the mix.

First, the criminal defense attorneys. (Next, the prosecutors.)

Before a lawyer can represent a client who is facing capital punishment in a Florida case, he must meet many, many requirements. Why? The Florida legislature as well as the Florida courts have recognized that when a defendant’s life is at stake, his legal counsel plays a vital role in making sure that due process of law is achieved.

Once again, it’s about your right to due process of law

Every aspect of due process must be vigilantly protected when the State is seeking to kill a defendant as punishment for actions that defendant has allegedly done. The ability of the government to take a citizen’s life must be scrupulously monitored and restrained – this is one of the key purposes of our due process standards.

Remember, as Justice Rehnquist alluded to in the Brady Opinion (04/20/09 post), the focus is on the state, not the individual defendant. Anything but the strictest of due process standards in death penalty cases risks the horrors of a fatal error.

Today, even with our due process standards in place, there are many innocent people who have been sent to Death Row, as the Innocence Project can readily confirm. Some innocent people have been executed in this country. Due process is not perfect – after all, it’s a manmade construct — but it’s the standard that we have set in our judicial system. It’s the best we can do, and our jurisprudence is always attempting to hone and better our due process standards.

Death Penalty Criminal Defense Attorneys in Florida

Perhaps the most important role from a due process perspective in a death penalty case is that of defense counsel. The trial judge, of course, vigilantly monitors each step of the legal process, but it is the defendant’s own attorneys that must make the objections to possible violations, and fill the record for appeal with the proper procedural foundations when errors are made.

A trial judge cannot rule on an objection that is not made. An appellate judge cannot rule a point of error left unaddressed.

Different states have different requirements for their death penalty defense attorneys, as does federal law for federal capital punishment cases. In Florida, a specific checklist provides the legal requirements that a criminal defense attorney must have before he sets as lead trial counsel, trial co-counsel, or appellate counsel for a defendant facing the penalty of death. Continue Reading The Checklist for Death Penalty Qualified Criminal Defense Attorneys in Florida

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 23 Years After Being Sentenced to Die, 55 Year Old Nathan Fields Finally Exonerated

Progressive postpartum depression is one of the least recognized diseases suffered by young mothers despite the fact that almost 80% of women who give birth experience some form of postpartum upset. Although this symptom picture is well described in the research literature, postpartum depression is not recognized in the mental health professional’s legal “bible,” the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (“DSM IV”). [20] The symptoms of postpartum depression may masquerade as manic-depression (bipolar disorder). Periods of euphoria, agitation, sleeplessness, sexual promiscuity, and hyperactivity characterize the manic symptoms. Poor judgment is a result. [21]

Progressive Postpartum Depression and Psychosis

A common misperception is that the postpartum depression is nothing more than the “baby blues” and will disappear on its own shortly after childbirth. [22] However, if untreated, the disease can develop into a more severe form, progressive postpartum depression or even psychosis. When this happens, the mother suffers from continued episodes of mania or depression, each one progressively worse than the last. Rejections, separations, and losses often trigger subsequent recurrent episodes. Because of the episodic nature, the woman is often untreated or undiagnosed until a tragedy occurs.

Despite the common misconception that only newborns are at risk from this disease, mothers suffering from the more severe form kill older children. The case of Andrea Yates more than amply illustrates this point. Continue Reading In Depth Look: Filicide is Different – 3