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 Texas Chief Justice Sharon Keller’s Lesson to Us All About Due Process

Later this month, a new reality-TV show will begin to air on the Discovery channel, called “Dallas DNA.” Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins is supportive of this new show; he’s quoted in USA Today as saying it ” ‘…makes justice better by showing the good, the bad and the ugly.’ ” Meanwhile, the chief counsel to the Innocence Project of Texas, Jeff Blackburn, is quoted as believing that the show exists merely to boost Watkins’ political career.

What is “Dallas DNA”?

The show itself focuses upon the use of DNA testing to discover individuals wrongfully convicted, particularly those on death row. Law students working with the Innocence Project of Texas, and presumably those working with District Attorney Watkins, will be the series’ new reality stars. Their work will be filmed and televised for a profit.

Remember, this is a reality TV show. As is “Survivor,” “Amazing Race,” and “Dancing With the Stars.” Continue Reading The Controversial New Reality TV Show – “Dallas DNA”

Subsequent studies agree with Resnick’s Classification of Motives in Maternal Filicide Cases

Subsequent studies have agreed on a commonality of motives in cases of maternal filicide.[8] These motives are: (1) the mother’s mental illness, often seen as “pathological,” “acutely psychotic,” or “mentally ill” killings, (2) lack of bonding with the child, manifested as “neonaticide,” “unwanted child,” or “ignored pregnancy” deaths, and (3) inadequate parenting, resulting in “accidental,” “discipline-related,” or “neglect” deaths.

Recent Studies Look Not Only at Motive, but at the Nature of the Mother-Child Relationship

Recent studies focus on more than just the motive, but on the nature of the mother-child relationship. Forensic psychiatric evaluations of women criminally charged with the deaths of their children found the following characterizations of the mother-child relationship: abusive / neglectful mothers, psychotic / depressed mothers, retaliatory mothers, psychopathic mothers, and detached mothers. Continue Reading In Depth Look: Filicide is Different – 2

I have written an article concerning the impact of media coverage on our constitutional rights to a fair trial – and the presumption of innocence, which appears today in both the print and web versions of the Orlando Sentinel.

It is entitled “Media zap right to fair trial: To wit, Casey Anthony et al. ” and you can read it here.

I welcome your thoughts and opinions.

1. In your jurisdiction, if you are charged with a state crime, will the state’s discovery in your case be accessible as a public record, like the “document dumps” made famous in the Casey Anthony case?

2. In your jurisdiction, if you or a family member is charged with a state crime, what are your protections against people going through your trash and demonstrating in front of your home 24/7, as occurred at the Anthony family home after Casey Anthony was arrested on charges of filicide?

3. If you are interviewed by the local authorities, are you being videotaped? Is that videotape available to the media? In the Anthony case, interviews were videotaped and those videotapes have been provided to the media. Continue Reading Five Questions to Ask Yourself about the Casey Anthony Case

There are really two death rows in Florida: one for the men, located at the Florida State Prison and Correctional Institution in Raiford, and a separate facility for the women at the Broward Correctional Facility in Fort Lauderdale. As of today’s date, there was one woman on Florida’s Death Row and 391 men.

(Who is the only woman on Florida’s Death Row? Tiffany Cole, a 27 year old female who was convicted of the kidnapping and murder of a retired Florida couple and sentenced to death for the killing of each victim (receiving two death penalty sentences).)

The Florida Department of Corrections actually provides a virtual tour of a Death Row prison cell, so you can see the tiny area in which these prisoners reside. Measuring 6′ (width) x 9′(depth) x 9.5′ (height), these cells are where those sentenced to death live – by themselves, they do not share a cell – until it is time for their death sentence to be carried out. Then, they are moved to the Death Watch cell, which is close to the execution site. The Death Watch cell is slightly larger than the Death Row cell.

Those individuals living on Death Row get three meals a day. Breakfast is at 5 a.m., dinner is over by 4:30 p.m. Lunch is somewhere around noon. They can only use spoons to eat their food, which is served to them on cafeteria trays. The food is prepared at the prison cafeteria. Continue Reading What It’s Really Like on Florida’s Death Row

Filicide, the killing of a child by its parent, has unique characteristics making it different from other forms of homicide.[1] Filicide seems particularly horrifying and inexplicable, especially when the parent is the mother.

Remember first that, in the United States, a staggering number of children go missing each year. In 2001, 797,500 children under 18 were reported missing, resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.[2] Unfortunately, of these missing children, nearly 1,300 were victims of homicide.[3] Nearly half of these children were under the age of five, and a parent killed over half of these.[4] Of all the children under age five killed during the period 1976 to 2000, 31% were killed by fathers, 30% by mothers, 23% killed by male acquaintances, 7% by other relatives, and 3% by strangers.[5]

Maternal Filicide – The Profile of Mothers Who Kill Their Children

A general profile of mothers most at risk of committing filicide has developed. Typically, the mother is young, around 21 years of age. She is single and has had multiple unstable relationships with men. Either she is mentally deficient or an apparently normal young woman, forced to put off high school graduation, college, or career because of pregnancy. She is unemployed and has financial difficulties. She may have suffered from serious mental illness in the past, or only manifested undiagnosed personality changes after the birth of her child. Roughly, one fifth of these mothers have been victims of physical or sexual abuse. Continue Reading In Depth Look: Filicide is Different – 1

There is a federal death penalty, just like there is the option of capital punishment in the majority of states, and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh comes to mind as a well-recognized example of the federal death penalty statute in action. (McVeigh’s 2001 execution was the first exercise of federal capital punishment since 1963.)

However, this week was the first time since federal capital punishment was authorized once again by Congress, over twenty years ago, that a Florida jury actually voted to put someone to death as punishment for their crime.

Perhaps you’ve heard of the Turnpike Killings.

On March 31, 2009, defendants Daniel Troya and Ricardo Sanchez, Jr. stood to hear an unanimous jury verdict that condemned the two men to death for the killing of Luis Julian Escobedo, 4, and Luis Damian Escobedo, 3, back in October 2006, while voting that the two defendants should receive life sentences for the killings of Luis and Yessica Escobedo. The jury deliberated almost four days before returning with their decision.

Of course, this is a drug-related crime. The Escobedo couple was involved with a drug cartel run by Daniel Varela, who has been sentenced to life in prison on drug trafficking charges, and it is undisputed that the deaths were related to the distribution and sale of cocaine in South Florida.

This is far from over. Continue Reading Jury Votes Federal Death Penalty for Florida Turnpike Killings

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 U.S. Supreme Court nixes hearing Thompson v. McNeil (08-7369) – but does 32 years in a Death Row cell amount to cruel and unusual punishment?

FACDL Death Penalty Seminar, Day 3:

On Day 3 of the FACDL Death Penalty Seminar, it was my turn to speak on “Creative Motion Practice,” which more accurately should be described as “Courage Under Fire.”

Courage is what we, as death penalty attorneys, must muster in the face of horrible facts, a judge who loathes the client, a prosecutor who is determined to kill the client, the blood-lust of some members of society, and even the media-induced witch hunt against a client.

This is the type of courage that lawyers like Adam Tebrugge and Jose Baez demonstrate on a daily basis: Adam in the face of horrible evidence against his client, and Jose in his fight for his high-profile client.

In the face of all this, we must find the strength to file even those motions that we know will not be granted. We must do this, not only for the sake of due process and justice, but because sometimes, just sometimes, those motions are granted, and we win.

When the odds seems insurmountable and the outlook is bleak, we need to reach down deep inside and find the courage to write and argue one more time.