In the July 2026 episode of 12:01: The Death Penalty in Context, DPI’s Executive Director Robin M. Maher speaks with Samuel Spital, Associate Director Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). To mark the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gregg v. Georgia, they explore the history of the landmark case, the pivotal role played by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in the litigation, and the enduring legacy of legendary LDF attorney Anthony Amsterdam. They conclude their conversation by looking back on the results of that 1976 decision.
They begin their conversation by detailing the landscape that set the stage for the Court’s ruling in Gregg. Ms. Maher highlights the social and legal factors that led the Supreme Court to invalidate every state’s death penalty statute in Furman v. Georgia (1972). Mr. Spital outlines the 8th Amendment claims set forth by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund that led the Court to find in Furman that capital punishment was being imposed in an unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious manner. Although the Court issued no majority opinion, Mr. Spital explains that the justices were united by a common concern: death sentences imposed so inconsistently that, in Justice Potter Stewart’s words, it was like being “struck by lightning.” The decision resulted in a nationwide moratorium on executions while states reconsidered their capital punishment laws.
Mr. Spital emphasizes the unexpected public and legislative responses to the Furman ruling: within a few years, dozens of states enacted new death penalty statutes intended to address the constitutional concerns identified by the Court. He notes that Justice Thurgood Marshall later expressed surprise at the speed with which states reinstated capital punishment, despite declining executions and growing skepticism about the practice before Furman. Mr. Spital says, “Justice Marshall said in his dissent is that when people are actually forced to reckon more specifically with a particular case and they really understand the frailties of humankind, the mitigating circumstances, all those sorts of things, even if they support the death penalty in the abstract, they’re much less likely to support it in an individual case.” Ms. Maher agrees with Mr. Spital’s reflection and adds that Justice Marshall’s comments about the importance of understanding the death penalty served as the impetus for DPI and other organizations to invest in educational efforts to clarify how the death penalty is used — and against whom.
Ms. Maher and Mr. Spital then turn their conversation towards Gregg v. Georgia and its companion cases in which the Court evaluated the constitutionality of the capital schemes that arose post-Furman. Here, they explain how the Supreme Court upheld “guided discretion” statutes that require individualized sentencing, while also striking down mandatory death penalty laws.
A central focus of the conversation is Anthony Amsterdam, whom Mr. Spital described as the most preeminent capital defense lawyer in American history. Mr. Spital detailed how, beyond arguing Furman, Mr. Amsterdam helped establish many of the constitutional doctrines that continue to govern capital sentencing, including the requirement that defendants receive individualized consideration and have an opportunity to present mitigating evidence. Mr. Spital also emphasizes that Mr. Amsterdam understands capital punishment as fundamentally a racial justice issue, rooted in the historical relationship between the death penalty and racial violence in the United States.
Reflecting on the five decades since Gregg, Mr. Spital says that the decision ultimately failed to achieve its central goal of eliminating arbitrariness in capital punishment. He points to the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, in which the Court declined to overturn Georgia’s death penalty despite statistical evidence demonstrating that race significantly influenced who received death sentences. Mr. Spital describes McCleskey as the clearest illustration that, despite the procedural safeguards and promises of fairness in Gregg, racial disparities continue to shape capital sentencing.
Ms. Maher and Mr. Spital conclude on a cautiously optimistic note. Mr. Spital observes that death sentences and executions remain far below their levels in previous decades, public support for capital punishment has declined, and advocates continue to pursue legal challenges under state constitutions and state law. As an example, he cites ongoing litigation in California that seeks to revisit many of the racial discrimination issues left unresolved by McCleskey, arguing that state courts need not repeat the mistakes of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Spital emphasizes that these cases demonstrate that “there continue to be different paths to challenge the discriminatory use of the death penalty, the unfair use of the death penalty.”
