At the outset, death is different.

In State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973), the Supreme Court of Florida upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty statute. The court found that “death is unique punishment in its finality and in its total rejection of the possibility of rehabilitation.” As such, the court confirmed that it was the intent of the legislature to reserve application of the death penalty “only to the most aggravated and least mitigated of the most serious crime.” Accordingly, the Florida Legislature put into place a special process with safeguards so that the death penalty is applied properly after conviction of a capital crime.

Multi-Step Process Between Conviction and Imposition of the Death Penalty

A separate multi-step process exists between conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. After a defendant is found guilty of a capital offense subject to the death penalty, the first step is a second trial to determine whether death will be imposed. At this trial, the jury hears evidence concerning aggravators, circumstances that weigh toward death, and mitigators, which weigh in favor of mercy.

The defense and prosecution can present new evidence supporting these circumstances. The jury then makes a sentencing recommendation based on these aggravators and mitigators. Florida, unlike many other states, does not require that the death recommendation be unanimous. A simple majority, a single person, is all it takes for a recommendation of death.

The Fifteen Aggravating Circumstances As Defined by Florida Statute

The aggravating circumstances that can apply in any given first degree murder case are limited to those set forth in Florida Statute § 921.141(5). These circumstances are limited to fifteen possible aggravators: Continue Reading In Depth Look: Death in Florida

When I checked my blog this morning, I was surprised to find a large number of responses to my posts. I was also pleased to find that the majority of the posts were thoughtful, measured, and reasoned responses.

Predictably, a number of responses were in regard to the Casey Anthony case. Although this case has touched deep emotions in those who follow it, this blog is not, and cannot be, about any Anthony family members. There are many good forums out there for that topic. This is not one of them.

This blog will talk about recent events and cases in the context of the death penalty. Hopefully, this blog will be a resource for you on capital punishment. This topic has ramifications at many levels in our lives: legal, moral, religious, social, and psychological. We can learn from each other as well as recent cases. There is more than enough to explore in these areas.

That said, here are the rules for getting your comments posted in the blog.

1. First, no responses that proclaim the innocence or guilt of an accused party will be published. That is not our job. It is ultimately the job of twelve good citizens who are willing to undertake that task.

2. Second, no comments speculating about evidence is likely to be published. Evidence is not the latest news report. It is not our job to determine what is evidence. That task is at the discretion of the trial judge, subject to codes such as the Florida Rules of Evidence or the Federal Rules of Evidence.

3. Third, off topic posts will not be published. Assuredly, there are blogs out there in the blog-o-sphere on those topics. Please post to them.

4. Finally, critical comments will be published but no responses containing pejorative comments about other posters, lawyers, judges, public figures, etc. are likely to be posted. This topic deserves critical thinking. Please give it the dignity and depth of thought that it deserves.

Responding to the Comments

I will make every effort to respond to comments promptly. However, I am an active trial lawyer with a family deserving of my time, as well. I hope to turnaround responses to comments within 24 to 48 hours – with the caveat that if I am traveling or in trial, that time frame will have to bend.

Lastly, thank you for reading and participating in this blog.

Last week, the Associated Press reported that Nevada lawmakers were proposing a moratorium on capital punishment in that state (to last until 2011) so they could have time to figure out how costly it was on the state to kill people for crimes they had done.

In Kansas, state senators are pushing a bill through their state legislature, hoping to abolish the death penalty because they say it’s too expensive when the economy is so bad.

In Maryland, where they’ve got a budget deep in the red, Governor Martin O’Malley is promoting the repeal of the Maryland death penalty statute because of the potential savings to the state coffers.

Florida is in a similar situation – more on that next time.

The Death Penalty is Expensive – and by Expensive, I mean Seven-Figures

You’d think that it would cost more to house someone for life, rather than just execute them and be done with it. But you’d be wrong.

Over at the Death Penalty Information Center (link below), they collect lots of financial data for the various state’s capital punishment costs (federal as well).

Money talks: as you peruse these studies, you’ll find that each death row inmate will cost a state at least a million dollars ($1,000,000) more than if that same inmate were given a life sentence without parole and imprisoned with other lifers. For some states, it’s more like $2 million, or even $3 million.

That’s a lot of moola for EACH person setting on death row.

Sources:

Associated Press

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/04/state/n101927S35.DTL&type=politics

Joplin Globe

http://www.joplinglobe.com/statenews/local_story_064225711.html

Baltimore City Paper

http://www.citypaper.com/story.asp?id=17549

Death Penalty Information Center

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

First of all, let me just take this opportunity to say that I’m always honored to be invited to appear on the Nancy Grace show. Nancy Grace is a true star of the airwaves today, and a heroine to many. It’s very humbling to be appearing before millions in one of those little rectangular talking-head cameo boxes on screen, along with Sue Moss and the rest of the lawyers. I was proud to have been invited once and I’m always thrilled to be asked back again.

And, no – Nancy and I don’t agree on many things. Respecting your colleagues doesn’t mean you necessarily see eye to eye with them. This is especially true among attorneys, and exceedingly true among the criminal bar. Prosecutors and defense attorneys may fight viciously in the courtroom, but we’ll shake hands in the hallway. You know a good lawyer when you see one, even if they’re on the other side.

Now, back to the Casey Anthony case ….
Last week, I was on the Nancy Grace show for a couple of nights, because Nancy was talking about the death penalty as it applies in the Casey Anthony matter. Specifically, the fact that the prosecution had taken the death penalty off the table in the Casey Anthony case and Nancy Grace’s arguments that the “tot mom” should have a jury decide whether or not the death penalty should apply to her.
Now, before this goes any further let me reiterate: I will not discuss the Casey Anthony case, itself, in any detail or particular. As the attorney who represented Casey Anthony in the death penalty discussions with the Florida state attorney’s office, I cannot do that – it violates my work product privilege, attorney-client privilege … well, you get the idea.
That doesn’t mean that I can’t discuss generalities, and the law regarding the death penalty today. And with that caveat, there are lots of lessons popping up in the Casey Anthony matter.

The Casey Anthony case – it’s revealing many things. Here’s one.
One lesson that I’m learning from all this media coverage of the Casey Anthony case is this: the need to know WHY — why did a beautiful baby, Caylee Anthony, die? Why … why…why? A hundred questions come to mind.
Well, in all this questioning and need to understand, there’s a great many people that are looking at judgment. And that’s good. Our society, as with all successful societies, must have rules and judgments that are assessed against those who break those rules. Without this basic structure, we’d live in chaos.
But along with judgment, there must come mercy. At least, in America, we believe in the consideration of mercy before the imposition of judgment.
That is why we have things like probation and parole and personal recognizance. Mercy.
Mercy is my job.
That’s my focus, it’s the raison d’être of my practice. Death penalty considerations come in the sentencing phase of a defendant’s case. Whether or not to impose the death penalty is a decision made only after the defendant has been found guilty of the specific charges that bring with them the possibility of capital punishment.
Judgment and Mercy

In the Casey Anthony case, there’s a tremendous amount of airtime and forum group time (think Websleuths) with energies being placed upon judgment.
I’m not seeing much on mercy. Are there considerations that may explain and mitigate this woman IF (and that’s right: IF) she did the crime of which she has been accused?
Journalists are taught that to get the whole story, you must ask “who, what, where, when, why, and how.”

In the Casey Anthony case, I’m not hearing many people asking that question WHY.
And, to me, that’s the most important question. Why. Why did this death happen? Because that’s the real answer we all want to know, I think, in any crime. And, because that’s where mercy is found.

Welcome to my new blog.
I’ve been practicing criminal law for a long time, and my schedule has been so busy that it’s been a while since I took time to think about why I do what I do. Launching this blog is an opportunity for such reflection.
Why DO I defend what some call “the worst of the worst”?
Just why is it that I defend those people that have been described on more than one occasion (and by more than one prosecutor) as the worst of the worst?
First, a word about what I do. I’m a criminal defense attorney who focuses upon death penalty cases. In Florida, where I live and do most of my work, death penalty cases have two lawyers, known as first chair and second chair. As first chair in a death penalty case, my job is concerned with the guilt finding of the defendant. As second chair, my job is to convince the jury to spare the life of the person if they are convicted. This job is known as “mitigation,” a specialized area that I will talk more about in a later post. I have further specialized in mental health aspects. More on that later, too.
“How can you represent those people?”
There are all the usual stock answers. “I am defending the Constitution.” “The death penalty is not a cost effective solution.” “There is no deterrent value.” “As for retribution, is a life in a cage worse than death?” “The system is not perfect, and innocent people have been sentenced to death.” “Death row is overwhelmingly populated by the poor and disadvantaged.”
And all of these answers are true, but they don’t tell you the whole story.
Fundamentally, I do this because I want to understand. Why did this happen? How did this person arrive at my figurative doorstep, accused of a horrendous crime? What are the factors, the background, the events that led this person here?
Every person has a story. There is always some underlying common humanity in even those convicted of the most brutal crimes. It is my job to bring these mitigating factors to the jury, to shed light on the darkest heart and most disturbed mind.
And I’m publishing this blog, devoted to the topic of capital punishment, i.e., the death penalty, because I think that you may share the same core need that I have: the need to know WHY.