Nevada

Nevada

COSTS: Death Penalty Cases in Nevada Cost $200K Extra, Just for Defense

A recent study of the death penalty in Nevada compared the costs of defending capital and non-capital murder cases. The study, conducted by Dr. Terance Miethe of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, looked at the time spent by defense attorneys at various stages of a case. The study’s findings included:
- Clark County public defense attorneys spent an average of 2,298 hours on a capital murder case compared to an average of 1,087 hours on a non-capital murder case--a difference of 1,211 hours, or 112%.
- Defending the average capital murder case in Clark County cost $229,800 for a Public Defender or $287,250 for appointed counsel. The additional cost of capital murder cases was $170,000 to $212,000 per case compared to the cost of a non-capital murder case in the same county.
- The 80 pending capital murder cases in Clark County will cost approximately $15 million more than if they were prosecuted without seeking the death penalty. More results below.

DPIC RESOURCES: New State Pages Now Available

DPIC is pleased to announce the completion of our State Information Pages for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  These state profiles provide historical and current information on the death penalty for each state, including famous cases, past legislative actions, and links to key organizations and state officials.  For frequently updated information, such as execution totals, the size of death row, or the number of exonerations, see our State-by-State Database.  Readers are encouraged to send additional information, pictures, and links to organizations in their state.  You can reach the State Information Pages through the "State by State" button at the top of every page on our website or under the "Resources" tab in our main menu.

COSTS: Nevada Senate Approves Bill to Study Death Penalty Costs

On May 28, the Nevada Senate passed a bill authorizing an audit of the cost of the state's death penalty.  By a vote of 11-10, the Senate called for the legislative auditor to compare the costs of prosecution and appeals in capital cases to non-death penalty cases, examining the cost of defense lawyers, juries, psychiatric evaluations, appellate and post-conviction proceedings. The auditor would also examine the cost of an execution, including the costs of facilities and staff. The report would be due Jan. 31, 2013. Nevada has not had an execution since April 2006, and has 77 inmates on death row. The bill originally called for a moratorium on executions, but prison officials said they did not presently have the drugs to carry out an execution anyhow.  The bill now goes back to the Assembly.

Growing Death Penalty Caseload for One Nevada County Causing Cost Concerns

Clark County, Nevada, has more pending death penalty cases per capita than any other urban county in the country. According to a review by Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice (NACJ), Clark County (Las Vegas) currently has 80 trials in which prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.  By comparison, Maricopa County in Arizona has the most pending death cases (130), but it has twice the population of Clark County.  Los Angeles County, California, has 33 pending death penalty cases, with 5 times Clark's population. Recently, the cost of the death penalty has become a concern for state legislators. Assemblyman Tick Segerblom is promoting a legislative study on the costs of capital cases in Nevada. He said, "At this point it's a financial issue. David Roger is over budget, and yet he has 80 death penalty cases pending. Washoe County only has one. Why is he wasting our money pursuing the death penalty when there is no money and it's virtually impossible to actually put someone to death?" Other studies estimate that death penalty trials cost $1 million more than trials in which the prosecutors seek life without parole. "The cost of killing killers is killing us," said Paola Armeni, president of NACJ.

Amidst Nebraska Execution-Secrecy Controversy, California Judge Lets Execution-Access Lawsuit Proceed

As lawyers for Nevada told their state supreme court that a controversial Nebraska execution had been carried out without problems, a federal judge issued a ruling allowing a lawsuit to proceed that would force California to allow media witnesses to observe executions in that state in their entirety. The developments in the cases in the two states highlight an ongoing controversy over the lack of transparency and accountability in recent lethal-injection executions. Attorneys representing the Nevada Department of Corrections said in a court filing on August 16, 2018 that media witnesses to Nebraska's four-drug execution of Carey Dean Moore, which used three of the drugs Nevada plans to use to execute Scott Dozier, "reported no complications, only some coughing before Moore stopped moving." They failed to report to the court that the witnesses did not see when the lethal-injection chemicals had been administered or what lethal-injection expert, Fordham Law Professor Deborah Denno, called "[t]he parts of the execution that would be most problematic" - when the IV lines are set and the period after the final drug is administered. Those occurred behind drawn curtains. Contrary to what Nevada's lawyers told the court, the Lincoln Journal-Herald, compiling witness observations to the execution, wrote: "Nebraska witnesses actually reported Moore coughed, his diaphragm and abdomen heaved, he went still, then his face and fingers gradually turned red and then purple, and his eyes cracked open slightly. One witness described his breathing as shallow, then deeper, then labored." Nebraska College of Law Professor Eric Berger, who studies the death penalty, called the eyewitness reports "somewhat troubling." He said, "It's certainly possible that everything went smoothly and humanely, but it's also possible that it didn't ... We just don’t have enough information to make that determination." Similar concerns with the ability of the public to view potentially problematic executions animated the federal court's ruling on the California execution process. Noting that the public has a First Amendment right to “view executions from the moment the condemned is escorted to the execution chamber," federal district court judge Richard Seeborg denied a motion filed by lawyers for the California Department of Corrections seeking to dismiss a lawsuit challenging administrative rules that bar the public from viewing the preparation and injection of lethal drugs and to keep the curtain open through the completion of the execution process. Christopher S. Sun, who represented media plaintiffs The Los Angeles Times, KQED, and the San Francisco Progressive Media Center, called public access to executions "critical to informing our national dialogue about the death penalty" and said the suit was filed to ensure that the public knows what actually happens during an execution. Sun said current California state regulations afford execution personnel discretion during the execution to draw the curtain on the window through which witnesses see the execution and require the curtain to be closed and the public address system turned off if three doses of the lethal-injection drugs fail to kill the prisoner, denying important information to the public in a matter of heightened public interest. In allowing the suit to proceed, the court said the media had made a threshold showing that it was entitled to observe prison personnel "preparing the chemicals[,] ... the process of administering the chemicals," the entire execution itself, and "the administration of medical care ... in the Lethal Injection Room" in the event of a failed or botched execution. The California lawsuit is not the first of its kind. In 2016, an Arizona federal court ruled that the First Amendment affords the public the right to view executions in that state in their totality.

30 Years After Landmark Case, Exclusion of Black Jurors Continues to Plague Death Penalty

Thirty years after the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky prohibited the intentional exclusion of prospective jurors on the basis of race, discrimination in capital jury selection continues to plague the administration of the death penalty across the country. In articles for The Huffington Post and Slate, Angel S. Harris, assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Robert Smith, a senior fellow at Harvard Law School's Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, link the continuing exclusion of black jurors in death penalty cases to the legacy of lynching in America. "While Black men are no longer lynched before all-white crowds gathered on the courthouse lawn," as was one of Harris' relatives in Florida, "Black men are all-too-often condemned to death by all-white juries that are produced by prosecutors’ deliberate exclusion of people of color, particularly Black people, from jury service," she wrote. In his Slate article, Smith describes the persistence of race-based use of discretionary strikes by prosecutors in numerous jurisdictions, and notes that "[t]he mix of prosecutorial impropriety and the exclusion of black jurors has always been a potent combination for injecting racial bias into death penalty cases." He and Harris point to studies in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and Houston County, Alabama showing systemically discriminatory use of discretionary strikes to remove black jurors from service in death penalty cases, recent cases in which the Nevada Supreme Court found racially discriminatory jury selection in Clark County, as well as race-based jury selection practices in such cities as Dallas and Philadelphia. These practices, Smith says, expose "the inextricable ties between race and the death penalty." The successful exclusion of jurors of color also produces less reliable verdicts, Harris says, pointing to studies showing that because, "compared to diverse juries, all-white juries spend less time deliberating, make more errors, rely on implicit biases and consider fewer alternative perspectives." The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering Foster v. Chatman (defendant Timothy Foster is pictured), a Georgia death penalty case in which prosecutors struck all the black jurors after highlighting and marking their names on the jury list and ranking them against each other in case "it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors." Prosecutors then argued to the all-white jury to sentence Foster to death to “deter other people out there in the projects.” 

Pages