Entries by Death Penalty Information Center

In 2009, Maryland passed leg­is­la­tion that imposed new require­ments for pros­e­cu­tors seek­ing the death penal­ty. A recent report pre­sent­ed to the Maryland General Assembly by promi­nent attor­neys, legal experts and law pro­fes­sors ana­lyzes the 2009 law three years after its pas­sage, high­light­ing its effects on the state’s death penal­ty sys­tem. According to the report, the 2009 law exac­er­bat­ed a sig­nif­i­cant set of prob­lems with the state’s death penal­ty, including…

An Op-Ed signed by eleven cur­rent and for­mer Kentucky pros­e­cu­tors calls for reforms to Kentucky’s death penal­ty, in light of the recent report issued by the American Bar Association. The ABA report was released in December after a two-year study of fair­ness and accu­ra­cy in cap­i­tal cas­es in Kentucky. The pros­e­cu­tors cite Kentucky’s ​“unac­cept­able” 60% error rate in death sen­tenc­ing, saying ​“As a mat­ter of basic fair­ness, we must pause to…

The Georgia Supreme Court recent­ly warned Gwinnett County offi­cials that time to try the mur­der case of Khahn Dinh Phan is run­ning out. Phan had peti­tioned the court to dis­miss his charges due to the state’s inabil­i­ty to fund his defense and the vio­la­tion of his right to a speedy tri­al. His case has not been brought to tri­al in near­ly sev­en years, part­ly because of Georgia’s finan­cial­ly strained indi­gent defense sys­tem. Attorneys for Phan, who were hired by…

A recent op-ed writ­ten by retired Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal F. Calogero Jr. high­lights the state’s his­to­ry of vio­lat­ing the U.S. Supreme Court​’s rul­ing in Brady v. Maryland. According to this rul­ing, pros­e­cu­tors are required to dis­close evi­dence favor­able to the defense, and that fail­ure to do so vio­lates the defendant’s right to due process. Calogero cit­ed a report by the Innocence Project New Orleans which found that favorable…

A case test­ing new death penal­ty statutes in Maryland has recent­ly con­clud­ed. The new statutes lim­it­ed when the death penal­ty could be sought to cas­es of first degree mur­der in which there is DNA or oth­er bio­log­i­cal evi­dence link­ing the defen­dant to a mur­der, a video-taped con­fes­sion by the defen­dant, or a video link­ing the defen­dant to the mur­der. Lee Edward Stephens, who was con­vict­ed of the fatal stab­bing of Cpl. David McGuinn, was spared…

Alabama recent­ly set an exe­cu­tion date for Thomas Arthur (pic­tured), who was con­vict­ed of a mur­der that took place 30 years ago. Arthur has always main­tained his inno­cence, but has been denied access to DNA evi­dence that might lead to a dif­fer­ent ver­dict. As Andrew Cohen point­ed out in an inves­tiga­tive piece in The Atlantic, Arthur is sched­uled for exe­cu­tion on March 29, despite the con­fes­sion of Bobby Ray Gilbert to the crime for which Arthur is…

On February 29, Arizona is sched­uled to exe­cute Robert Moorman, who was sen­tenced to death for a 1984 mur­der. Moorman’s rep­re­sen­ta­tives have said the crime was com­mit­ted after years of sex­u­al abuse by the defendant’s adop­tive moth­er, whom he then killed and dis­mem­bered her body. Moorman was diag­nosed with men­tal retar­da­tion and attend­ed spe­cial edu­ca­tion class­es while in pub­lic school. His first stay at a men­tal insti­tu­tion occurred when he was 13. At a…

Craig Watkins (pic­tured), the dis­trict attor­ney of Dallas County, Texas, recent­ly called for a review of the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem. Since becom­ing D.A. in 2007, Watkins has ini­ti­at­ed a con­vic­­tion-inte­gri­­ty unit to exam­ine crim­i­nal cas­es in the coun­ty. Since 2001, Dallas County has exon­er­at­ed 27 inmates, includ­ing 22 through DNA evi­dence, most dur­ing Watkins’s tenure. None of these inmates were from death row. Regarding the death penal­ty, Watkins…

On February 21 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a U.S. Court of Appeals deci­sion grant­i­ng a retri­al to James Lambert, who had been con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death in 1984 in Pennsylvania. Lambert appealed his con­vic­tion, claim­ing that pros­e­cu­tors nev­er dis­closed evi­dence iden­ti­fy­ing an addi­tion­al co-defen­­dant, in vio­la­tion of Brady v. Maryland. Lambert claimed this new evi­dence would have impeached the testimony that…