Entries by Death Penalty Information Center

The par­ents and three chil­dren of Louisiana mur­der vic­tim Kim Groves have asked the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to for­go seek­ing the death penal­ty for co-defen­­dants Paul Hardy and Len Davis. In a let­ter to pros­e­cu­tors, the Groves fam­i­ly urged U.S attor­neys to halt pro­ceed­ings that might lead to death sen­tences in rehear­ings for both defendants. ​“Executing these two men will not bring Kim Groves back to life. It will not ease the deep sor­row and loss that her fam­i­ly has and will con­tin­ue to experience…

Even though the state of Virginia admits that the ques­tion of Daryl Atkins’ men­tal retar­da­tion is a ​“close case,” it is still pur­su­ing a lengthy jury tri­al to ensure his exe­cu­tion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002 that those with men­tal retar­da­tion must be exclud­ed from the death penal­ty, but they issued no opin­ion with regard to Mr. Atkins’ men­tal sta­tus. As the tri­al in Virginia began this week, Atkins’ moth­er and for­mer teach­ers tes­ti­fied about his long-term…

A North Carolina Superior Court judge orderd a new tri­al for death row inmate Rex Penland fol­low­ing DNA test­ing that dis­cred­it­ed the state’s case. Penland was con­vict­ed of a rape and mur­der 11 years ago, but DNA test­ing at the time of his tri­al was incon­clu­sive. More recent test­ing was favor­able to Penland and did not place him at the scene of the crime. Penland was con­vict­ed large­ly on the basis of tes­ti­mo­ny from his two nephews who were also involved in the crime. Ken Rose, one of…

A recent Philadelphia Inquirer edi­to­r­i­al crit­i­cized the proposed ​“Streamlined Procedures Act,” fed­er­al leg­is­la­tion that would deny or sharply restrict the reach of fed­er­al judges in hear­ing habeas-cor­­pus claims from those on death row. Noting that the mea­sure would increase the pos­si­bil­i­ty of exe­cut­ing an inno­cent per­son, the edi­to­r­i­al stat­ed: Amid Washington law­mak­ers’ lat­est dri­ve to fur­ther restrict the appeals of (cap­i­tal) defen­dants, they need to rec­og­nize what could be at risk with…

The fed­er­al death penal­ty was rein­stat­ed in 1988 with a lim­it­ed statute for mur­ders in the course of a drug con­spir­a­cy. It was expand­ed to 60 offens­es in 1994 and includ­ed crimes such as car­jack­ing and dri­ve-by shoot­ings if a death results. During the Clinton admin­is­tra­tion, no one from a non-death penal­ty state was sen­tenced to death. Since 2000, there have been at least 5 indi­vid­u­als in non-death states who have received death sen­tences: 2 in Iowa (Dustin Honken and Angela Johnson), 1 in…

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney recent­ly tes­ti­fied that the proposed ​“fool­proof” death penal­ty statute he hopes will bring cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment back to the state does not elim­i­nate the pos­si­bil­i­ty that an inno­cent per­son could be exe­cut­ed. Romney acknowl­edged to mem­bers of the joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee that the pro­posed law can­not pro­tect the state against the poten­tial for human error, stating, ​“A 100 per­cent guar­an­tee? I don’t think there’s such a thing in life. Except…

More than a decade after juve­nile offend­er Martin Soto Fong and two oth­er men were tried and sen­tenced to death in Arizona, ques­tions about Fong’s guilt linger and are under­scored by the fact that he is the only one of the three men to remain con­vict­ed of the crime. The pros­e­cu­tor who won their con­vic­tions, Kenneth Peasley, was dis­barred last year for inten­tion­al­ly elic­it­ing false tes­ti­mo­ny to win cap­i­tal mur­der con­vic­tions in the re-tri­als of Soto’s co-defen­­dants, Christopher McCrimmon and…

The Reverend Carroll Pickett, for­mer chap­lain on death row in…

A vari­ety of legal experts and nation­al orga­ni­za­tions have expressed strong con­cerns about a bill intro­duced in Congress that would great­ly lim­it fed­er­al review of death penal­ty cas­es. The American Bar Association called for rejec­tion of the leg­is­la­tion: S. 1088 should not be enact­ed. Its pri­ma­ry effect would be to insure that the fed­er­al courts did not hear com­pelling claims – includ­ing claims of actu­al inno­cence. Any pos­si­ble gain in speed would be off­set by the cer­tain loss of jus­tice. As…