A juror who served on the capital murder trial of Raymond Tibbetts (pictured) and voted to sentence Tibbetts to death has written to Ohio Governor John Kasich asking Kasich to halt Tibbetts’s scheduled February 13 execution and commute his sentence to life without parole. In a January 30 letter to Governor Kasich, juror Ross Geiger—who, at the time of trial, described himself as a conservative Republican—said after learning the “truly terrible conditions” in which Tibbetts was brought up and the role the prescription of opioid painkillers played in the murder, he had “deep concerns about the trial and the way it transpired.” Geiger told the Governor “that the system was and seems to be today very flawed in this case” and that, “[b]ased on what I know today, I would not have recommended the death penalty.” Geiger became interested in the status of Tibbetts’s case after reading a recent news story about a challenge to Ohio’s method of execution. Researching on his own, he learned of Tibbetts’s pending execution and saw links to the clemency materials filed in the case. “Imagine my anger,” he wrote, “when I was able to review the clemency [materials]” and found “[p]ages of relevant information” that were never provided to the jury detailing “the abandonment, foster abuse, and reabandonment” that Tibbetts had experienced “and that it began before Tibbets was even two years old.” At trial, Tibbetts’s lawyer presented a psychiatrist who provided anecdotal testimony about Tibbetts’s background, but provided the jury with no social service records or family witnesses supporting that testimony. Prosecutors, Geiger said, “dismantled” the defense evidence by arguing that “lots of people with troubled childhoods do not become murderers [and] strongly impl[ying] that Tibbets [sic] siblings turned out fine.” Geiger said his mind was changed when he learned of defense counsel’s ineptitude, that the defense had never asked Tibbetts’s sister to testify, and what he called “[t]he revelation that the prosecutors got it wrong if not lied about Tibbets [sic] siblings having normal lives.” Geiger said he was shocked to learn about the brutal conditions in the foster home in which Tibbetts and his brothers lived, including being tied to a bed, thrown down stairs, having their fingers burned and beaten, and not being fed properly. "In fact," Gieger wrote in an op-ed in the Cleveland Plain Dearer, "of Mr. Tibbetts' four siblings, one committed suicide, one also spent time in prison, one is essentially homeless and unemployed, and only his sister is now doing well, despite having had a very turbulent younger life." Also supporting his plea for mercy, Geiger said that he and his fellow jurors did know that Tibbetts had a history of drug abuse and they were “not aware of the very real problem of prescribing opioids to people with addictive behaviors.” Tibbetts never received mental health treatment for his traumatic childhood and turned to alcohol and drugs to dull the pain. Although he repeatedly tried to combat his addiction, and for several years seemed to have his life under control, he then suffered an on-the-job back injury, for which he was prescribed an opioid painkiller, causing him to relapse into addiction. In the months leading up to the crime, Tibbetts attempted suicide and tried to get into a treatment program, but was turned down. Tibbetts killed two people after a crack-related argument. Geiger told Associated Press that, at the time of trial, he believed the law required him to vote for death based on the evidence the jury had heard and that he now feels "duped by the system." He said, “The state asked me to carry the responsibility for such a decision but withheld information from me that was important.” Ohio prosecutors oppose clemency for Tibbetts, saying that his mitigating evidence does not outweigh the circumstances of the crime.
BOOK: Death-Row Exoneree Anthony Ray Hinton Publishes “Heart-Wrenching Yet Ultimately Hopeful” MemoirPosted: February 2, 2018
Anthony Ray Hinton spent thirty years confined on Alabama's death row for murders he did not commit. Three years after his exoneration and release, he has published a memoir of his life, The Sun Does Shine: How I Found Life and Freedom on Death Row, that recounts stories from his childhood, the circumstances of his arrest, the travesty of his trial, how he survived and grew on death row, and how he won his freedom. The book, co-authored with Lara Love Hardin, has earned praise from Kirkus Review as an “urgent, emotional memoir from one of the longest-serving condemned death row inmates to be found innocent in America,” and "[a] heart-wrenching yet ultimately hopeful story about truth, justice, and the need for criminal justice reform." Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu called Hinton's book "an amazing and heartwarming story [that] restores our faith in the inherent goodness of humanity." The memoir begins: “There’s no way to know the exact second your life changes forever.” He was arrested in 1985 and capitally charged in connection with the murder of two fast-food restaurant managers, even though he had been working in a locked warehouse 15 miles away when that crime was committed. The prosecutor, who had a documented history of racial bias, said he could tell Hinton was guilty and "evil" just by looking at him. Hinton's incompetent trial lawyer did not know and did not research the law, and erroneously believed the court would not provide funds to hire a qualified ballistics expert to rebut the state expert's unsupported claim that the bullets that killed the victims had been fired from Hinton's gun. Instead, his lawyer hired a visually impaired "expert" who did not know how to properly use a microscope, whose testimony was destroyed in front of the jury. Hinton was convicted and sentenced to death. Hinton speaks candidly about the psychological effect executions of other prisoners had on him as he feared execution for crimes he did not commit. Writing about the 1987 execution of Alabama prisoner Wayne Ritter, Hinton says, “I didn’t even realize they had executed [him] until I smelled his burned flesh.” Faced with this gruesome reality, Hinton realized, “I wasn’t ready to die. I wasn’t going to make it that easy on them.” In 2002, three top firearms examiners testified that the bullets could not be matched to Hinton's gun, and may not have come from a single gun at all. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that Hinton had been provided substandard representation and returned his case to the state courts for further proceedings. Prosecutors decided not to retry him after the state's new experts said they could not link the bullets to Hinton's gun. Hinton's lead attorney in the efforts to overturn his conviction and obtain his freedom was Bryan Stevenson, Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative and author of Just Mercy. In the forward to The Sun Does Shine, Stevenson writes that Hinton’s story “is situated amid racism, poverty, and an unreliable criminal justice system.” Hinton, he writes, "presents the narrative of a condemned man shaped by a painful and tortuous journey around the gates of death, who nonetheless remains hopeful, forgiving, and faithful." Hinton—the 152nd person exonerated from America's death rows since 1973—says he hopes his story will increase public awareness of the risks of executing the innocent and the irreparable failures of the nation's capital-punishment system. "The death penalty is broken," he writes, "and you are either part of the death squad or you are banging on the bars.”
Severely restricting the use of capital punishment or abolishing the death penalty altogether would help rectify some of the persistent racial disparities found in the United States' criminal justice system, according to Cassia Spohn (pictured), the Foundation Professor of Criminology and Director of the School of Criminology & Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. In a chapter on Race and Sentencing Disparity in the recently released Academy for Justice four-volume study, Reforming Criminal Justice, Spohn—the author of How Do Judges Decide? The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment—writes that there is “clear and convincing evidence of racial disparity in the application of the death penalty” in the United States. Spohn's chapter traces the theoretical and methodological development in research into the relationship between race/ethnicity and sentencing over the past eight decades. She concludes that “reducing racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing and punishment requires something more than the passage of legislation designed to reduce incrementally the discretion of prosecutors, judges, and corrections officials." She recommends three major reforms "to reduce both the punitive bite of incarceration and the disparity in punishment": eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, abolishing the death penalty, and enacting Racial Justice Acts that would allow judges to consider whether racial bias played a role in the decision to seek or impose the death penalty and permit prisoners to challenge their sentences with statistical evidence showing a pattern of racial discrimination in sentencing. Spohn cites demographic evidence that, she says, convincingly demonstrates clear racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty in the United States. In 2016, 41.8% of the 2,905 prisoners under sentence of death in the United States and more than a third of those executed since 1977 (34.5%) were Black, although African Americans make up only 13% of the population. Similarly, she writes, those who murder White victims are sentenced to death and executed at disproportionately high rates: from 1977 through 2016, 75.6% of executed prisoners were convicted of killing White victims, as compared to 15.3% who were convicted of killing Black victims, and 6.9% convicted of killing Hispanics. The disparities, she found, were "particularly pronounced" in the use of the death penalty for rape, before the Supreme Court declared that practice unconstitutional in 1977. Between 1930 and 1972, 455 people were executed for rape; 405 of them (89%) were Black men and a number of states did not execute a single White man for rape during this period. Spohn argues that Racial Justice Acts could provide important safeguards in addressing discriminatory death-penalty practices. However, she writes, efforts to enact them have largely failed. The U.S. House of Representatives included a Racial Justice Act as part of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994, but it was removed by the Senate, where opponents "argued that it would effectively abolish the death penalty in the United States." Only Kentucky and North Carolina enacted state Racial Justice Acts, and the North Carolina legislature repealed its act in 2013 after four death row prisoners established that race had been a significant factor in their sentencing. Spohn concludes that "[t]he defeat of the Racial Justice Act in Congress and the failure of the issue to gain traction in the states, coupled with persuasive evidence of racial disparity in the application of the death penalty, suggest that the remedy for racial bias in the capital sentencing process is abolition of the death penalty."
Alabama prosecutors have agreed that Renard Marcel Daniel (pictured) should be resentenced to life without parole, after the state's mental health expert administered psychological tests to Daniel that showed the intellectually disabled man had an IQ of 48. Earlier in January, Daniel's lawyers—with the consent of the Alabama Attorney General's office—filed a motion in federal district court jointly asking the court to vacate Daniel's death sentence and return his case to state court for him to be resentenced. Daniel, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003, was represented at trial by lawyers who never spoke with him until three days before his trial. He argued in his state and federal appeals that his death sentence should be overturned because his lawyers had failed to investigate and present extensive evidence of his intellectual disability and horrifically traumatic childhood. The investigation by Daniel's appeal lawyers discovered that, when Daniel was only three years old, his mother killed his father with a shotgun while Daniel was in the home. They learned that before Daniel was even a teenager, his stepfather began sexually assaulting him and forced him to engage in sex acts on his siblings. His stepfather, they found, also regularly beat Daniel, one time so severely that he had to be hospitalized with a ruptured kidney. School records that trial counsel failed to obtain also showed that Daniel was placed in special education classes and suffered from severely deficient intellectual functioning from a young age, and was reading at only a second-grade level when he was thirteen. Yet despite being presented a truncated version of Daniel's traumatic childhood through brief testimony by his mother at trial, two jurors recommended that Daniel be sentenced to life. But Alabama law permitted the trial judge to impose a death sentence without a unanimous jury vote, and the court sentenced him to death. Alabama's state courts and the Alabama federal district court rejected Daniel's appeals without an evidentiary hearing. However, in May 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, calling Daniel's childhood "nightmarish by any standard," ruled that the state courts had unreasonably denied his claims. It reversed the district court's decision dismissing Daniel's habeas petition and directed the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Daniel's penalty-stage ineffectiveness claim. In preparation for that hearing, the State's expert measured Daniel's IQ at 48, more than 20 IQ points below the accepted stardard for diagnosing intellectual disability. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia that subjecting people with intellectual disability to the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, and state prosecutors agreed that Daniel should be resentenced to life.
Colorado Supreme Court Overturns Prison-Murder Conviction, Says Prosecutors Withheld Evidence in Death-Penalty CasePosted: January 30, 2018
The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a trial court ruling overturning the first-degree murder conviction of David Bueno (pictured) after Arapahoe County prosecutors who sought the death penalty against him in a prison killing hid evidence that pointed to another suspect. The January 22 ruling comes in the wake of a trial court ruling that prosecutors in the state's 18th Judicial District, which includes Arapahoe County, also suppressed more than twenty pieces of evidence that should have been disclosed to the defense in the capital trials of death-row prisoners Sir Mario Owens and Robert Ray. Bueno's lawyer, David Lane, called the pattern of prosecutorial conduct in the 18th Judicial District, "Mississippi in the mountains." "Ethically, prosecutors are required to seek justice, not convictions," he said. "But they apparently lose sight of that on a regular basis, especially on death-penalty cases in the 18th Judicial District." Bueno and a second Latino prisoner, Alex Perez, were charged with stabbing a white prisoner, Jeffrey Heird, to death in 2004. The day before the murder, another white prisoner, Michael Snyder, told his wife in a phone call recorded by the prison that he had been ordered to stab a prisoner. The evening after the murder, a prison nurse found a note containing threats by a white supremacist prison group to kill “men of the white race who refuse to accept their proud race.” The nurse immediately prepared an incident report that included a copy of the letter. One day later, another white inmate died under suspicious circumstances and a prison lieutenant who was investigating the death prepared a second report suggesting the deaths might be connected. The court wrote that undisputed evidence established that "the prosecution possessed both of these reports within days of Heird’s murder but did not provide copies of them to Bueno until five years later," after he had been convicted. Despite specific requests by the defense to be provided all incident reports, and in violation of its constitutional obligation to disclose all potentially exculpatory evidence, the court found prosecutors had made “a conscious decision ... to keep the information from the Defendant." The court agreed with the trial judge that these violations were prejudicial because "[t]he identity of Heird’s killer was the core issue at trial, with Bueno arguing that white supremacists had committed the murder," and the jury had taken four days to deliberate, including asking the court how to overcome a deadlock. The jury then imposed a life sentence, rejecting the death penalty in the case. In a 2010 interview with Westword after the trial court had overturned Bueno's conviction, Lane called it "truly stunning that the prosecutors in this case hid evidence that was so favorable to the defense" and said "it is particularly shocking in light of the fact that this was a death penalty case." A 2015 study showed significant racial and geographic disparities in the prosecution of death-penalty cases in Colorado, with non-white defendants and defendants in the 18th Judicial District statistically more likely to be capitally prosecuted. All three prisoners on Colorado's death row are from the 18th Judicial District. 18th District DA George Brauchler, who opposed the grant of a new trial in the case, is currently seeking election as Colorado's Attorney General.
NEW VOICES: Law Enforcement Officials in Washington, Texas Call for End of Their States’ Death PenaltiesPosted: January 29, 2018
Drawing on their experience in the criminal justice system, elected law enforcement officials in Washington and Texas have urged repeal of their states' death-penalty laws. In Washington, King County (Seattle) prosecutor Dan Satterberg (pictured, left), a Republican, testified January 22 before the Senate Law and Justice Committee in favor of a bipartisan legislative proposal to repeal Washington's capital-punishment statute. Telling the Texas Tribune “[w]e’re killing the wrong people,” former Dallas County sheriff Lupe Valdez (pictured, right), currently a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for governor of Texas, announced her opposition to Texas's death penalty. Satterberg's testimony came on the heels of an op-ed he wrote in The Seattle Times in support of SB6052, a bill that would prospectively abolish capital punishment. Satterberg, who has worked in the King County prosecutor's office for 27 years and witnessed Washington's last execution in 2010, wrote: "It is my duty to report that the death penalty law in our state is broken and cannot be fixed. It no longer serves the interests of public safety, criminal justice, or the needs of victims." Sitting alongside Democratic Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Satterberg told the committee, “If you look at it carefully and take away the politics and the emotion, by any measure this doesn't work. Our criminal justice system would be stronger without the death penalty.” The abolition bill was introduced by Republican state Sen. Maureen Walsh, with bipartisan co-sponsorship, at Ferguson's request. In a news release, Ferguson said: “The death penalty is expensive, unfair, disproportionate — and it doesn’t work. More than a third of all U.S. states have abolished the death penalty. Washington should join them.” The bill passed the committee by a 4-3 vote on January 25. In a Texas candidate's forum in Austin, Valdez—who served as sheriff from 2005 to 2017 before resigning to run for governor—referenced on-going concerns about wrongful capital convictions and wrongful executions. “Some of those [sentenced to death in Texas] have been exonerated," Valdez said. "We cannot continue being in a situation where we risk killing a person who is not guilty.” Since 1973, 13 people have been exonerated from death row in Texas, and questions have been raised about the guilt of several executed prisoners, including Carlos DeLuna, Cameron Willingham, and Robert Pruett. Valdez joined another leading Democratic contender for governor, businessman Andrew White, in opposing the death penalty. Incumbent Governor Greg Abbott, a former Texas attorney general, is a strong supporter of capital punishment.
The United States Supreme Court has stayed the execution of Vernon Madison to consider for a second time questions related to his competency to be executed. In a 6-3 vote, with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting, the Court halted Alabama's scheduled January 25 execution of Madison "pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari" he had filed seeking review of his competency to be executed. That petition was based upon new evidence of his deteriorating mental condition and that the doctor whose opinion state courts had relied upon in finding him competent had been addicted to drugs, was forging prescriptions, and was subsequently arrested. Madison—who has no memory of the crime he committed as a result of a succession of strokes that have caused dementia—has been challenging his competency to be executed for more than two years. In May 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted Madison a stay of execution to consider his competency claim, and the Supreme Court deadlocked at 4-4 on whether to vacate that stay. The Eleventh Circuit subsequently ruled in March 2017 that Madison was incompetent to be executed, saying that the Alabama state courts had acted unreasonably in finding him competent. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that decision in November 2017, reinstating the state-court ruling and clearing the way for Alabama to issue the latest death warrant. After the Supreme Court's ruling, Madison's attorneys returned to the state courts with the new evidence. The state court, once again, denied him relief, leading to Madison's request to the Supreme Court for a stay. The stay will provide the Court time to review two separate petitions filed by Madison's lawyers. The first affords the Court the opportunity to address whether the Eighth Amendment permits "the State to execute a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him without memory of his commission of the capital offense." The second petition challenges the constitutionality of Madison's death sentence itself. Madison was sentenced to death by an Alabama trial judge despite the jury's recommendation that he receive a life sentence. Since the time of his sentence, Alabama has repealed the portion of its law permitting "judicial override" of a jury's life recommendation, and no state now authorizes that practice. Madison's execution date has attracted international attention because of his severely impaired mental condition. On January 24, David O'Sullivan, the European Union's Ambassador to the United States, wrote to Alabama Governor Kay Ivey with "an urgent humanitarian appeal" for her to reconsider the state's decision to execute Madison, citing "his major neurocognitive disorder." The letter "note[d] with concern that there is undisputed evidence that Mr. Madison has suffered multiple strokes, including a thalamic stroke resulting in encephalomalacia, that have damaged multiple parts of his brain, including those responsible for memory." It also reminded Alabama that "[t]he execution of persons suffering from any mental illness or having an intellectual disability is in contradiction to the minimum standards of human rights, as set forth in several international human rights instruments." Madison's lead counsel, Bryan Stevenson, said that he was "thrilled" by the Court's decision to grant a stay and that "[k]illing a fragile man suffering from dementia is unnecessary and cruel."
A Wake County, North Carolina jury has rejected the death penalty for 24-year-old Donovan Jevonte Richardson (pictured) and sentenced him to two life sentences, marking the ninth consecutive Wake County capital trial to result in a life verdict. No jury has imposed the death penalty in the county since 2007. “The reality," said Gretchen Engel, Executive Director of the Durham-based Center for Death Penalty Litigation, is that "it just doesn’t make sense to pursue the death penalty in Wake County. Juries have made it crystal clear that they no longer want to impose death sentences, and these costly protracted trials benefit no one.” The jury voted on January 24 to spare Richardson's life, finding that 11 mitigating circumstances—including his age, lack of premeditation, and mental duress at the time of the crime—outweighed the aggravating factors of burglary and robbery during a 2014 home break-in that ended in the murders of Arthur Lee Brown, 74, and David Eugene McKoy, 66. The jury also found as mitigating circumstances that Richardson's father had abandoned him, refusing to acknowledge that Richardson was his son until after a paternity test; that sentencing Richardson to death could harm his two young sons, aged 3 and 7; and that Richardson’s family had offered assurances that Richardson would have a relationship with his sons while he is imprisoned. Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman characterized the case as "everybody's worst nightmare[,] ... two men who worked hard (and) loved their families (but) were murdered in the sanctity of their home at night." She said, "This was a case that we felt strongly (that) under the law (and) under the facts of the case, it was appropriate to go to a jury on that issue." Engel disagreed. “Donovan Richardson wasn’t the most culpable murderer in Wake County, or even in this case. He was just the one who refused to accept the plea bargain," she said. "That’s why he ended up facing the death penalty. It’s a system that makes no sense. It’s entirely arbitrary and goes against our ideas about justice and a death penalty reserved only for a carefully selected few.” The evidence in the case showed that another man Gregory Crawford, committed at least one of the killings and may have shot both men. He pleaded guilty in May 2016 to charges of first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. A third man, Kevin Britt, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon and burglary, but was permitted to plead guilty to being an accessory to murder after agreeing to testify against Richardson. He is expected to serve less than two years in prison. A 2013 study by DPIC showed that Wake County had the 50th largest county death row in the United States and was among the 2% of U.S. counties accounting for 56% of all prisoners then on death row in the country. In February 2016, after jurors had returned the sixth consecutive life sentence in Wake County, District Attorney Freeman said it might be time to reassess whether to seek the death penalty in future cases. The county nonetheless has sought the death penalty in at least one capital trial in each of the last three years, a time period in which there have been only ten capital trials in the state's 100 counties and only one death sentence.
Florida Denies New Sentencing Hearings to More than Thirty Prisoners, Most Unconstitutionally Sentenced to DeathPosted: January 24, 2018
In three days of bulk decision-making, the Florida Supreme Court has denied new sentencing hearings to more than thirty death-row prisoners, declining to enforce its bar against non-unanimous death sentences to cases that became final on appeal before June 2002. At least 24 of the prisoners who were denied relief had been unconstitutionally sentenced to death after non-unanimous jury sentencing recommendations, including three prisoners—Etheria Verdell Jackson, Ernest D. Suggs, and Harry Franklin Phillips—with bare majority death recommendations of 7-5. The Florida court adopted June 24, 2002 as its cutoff date for enforcing its decision because that was when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, an Arizona case establishing that the right to a jury trial entitles a capital defendant to have a jury find all facts that are necessary for a death sentence to be imposed. In January 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hurst v. Florida that Florida's death-penalty statute, which reserved penalty-phase factfinding for the judge, violated Ring. Later, also in Hurst's case, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a capital defendant's right to a jury trial also required a unanimous jury vote for death before the trial judge could impose a death sentence. That decision potentially invalidated more than 375 Florida death sentences. However, in December 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Ring had announced a new legal right and that it would not apply Hurst to cases that had already completed their direct appeal before Ring was decided. The court issued opinions declining to apply Hurst in ten death-penalty cases on January 22, another ten on January 23, and a third set of ten on January 24. The court also issued unpublished orders denying relief in some other cases. Still more decisions are expected. These rulings reiterate the court's decision to not grant relief to prisoners who were unconstitutionally sentenced to death prior to Ring. On August 10, 2017, the court, by a 6-1 vote, upheld the death sentence imposed on James Hitchcock, despite his being unconstitutionally sentenced to death following a non-unanimious sentencing recommendation by the jury. In dissenting, Justice Barbara J. Pariente wrote: "To deny Hitchcock relief when other similarly situated defendants have been granted relief amounts to a denial of due process." In 80% of the new opinions, juries had not unanimously recommended death, but the prisoners' appeals had been completed before Ring was decided. In four cases, the appeals of unconstitutionally death-sentenced prisoners became final in 2001. Steven Maurice Evans's appeal became final in March of 2002 and James Ford's unconstitutional death sentence became final in May 28, 2002, less than a month before Ring was decided. In the six cases in which prisoners had unanimous jury recommendations for death, the court declined to review other potential violations of Hurst and whether instructions diminishing the jury’s sense of responsibility may have unconstitutionally affected the verdict. Among those whose appeals were denied on January 22, 2018 is Eric Scott Branch, who was unconstitutionally sentenced to death following a 10-2 jury recommendation for death in 1997. Branch is set to be executed on February 22. According to a Death Penalty Information Center analysis of Florida's death-row prisoners who have non-unanimous jury recommendations and whose convictions became final post-Ring, 153 prisoners on Florida's death row are entitled to resentencing. Of them,123 (or 80.9%) have already obtained relief. At least eighteen prisoners who obtained relief under Hurst have since been resentenced to life, while two prisoners who initially had non-unanimous sentencing recommendations have been resentenced to death. In 2017, Florida executed two prisoners—Marc Asay and Michael Lambrix—after denying them relief despite their unconstitutional non-unanimous death sentences. [UPDATE: The Florida Supreme Court issued opinions denying relief in ten additional death-penalty cases on January 26, bringing the total of cases in which it declined to apply the constitutional protections announced in Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State during the past week to at least 41.]
Condemned Alabama Prisoner Seeks Stay Based on Mental Incompetency and Arrest of Court-Appointed ExpertPosted: January 23, 2018
Lawyers for 67-year-old Vernon Madison (pictured), a death-row prisoner whose diagnosis of "irreversible and progressive" vascular dementia has left him with no memory of the crime for which he was sentenced to death, have filed a motion to stay his January 25 execution in Alabama. In a petition for writ of certiorari and motion for stay of execution filed January 18 in the U.S. Supreme Court, Madison's lawyers argue that the courts wrongly found Madison competent to be executed based upon the opinion of a drug-addicted psychologist who has been suspended from practice and arrested on felony charges of forging prescriptions for controlled substances. The petition says a series of strokes has left Madison with no memory of the murder for which he was sentenced to death, an IQ within the range of those with intellectual disability, and unable to recall the alphabet beyond the letter G. Madison is also legally blind, incontinent, and unable to walk independently. The U.S. Supreme Court had cleared the way for Madison’s execution in a November 2017 opinion, overturning an earlier federal appeals court’s ruling that Alabama's state courts had unreasonably found Madison competent to be executed. The Supreme Court noted that, at that time, its review of the case was limited by federal habeas law, which the court said required it to defer to the Alabama court ruling. The court expressed no view "outside of the [federal habeas] context" whether Madison was competent to be executed. In their current appeal, Madison's lawyers presented unrebutted new evidence challenging the opinions offered by Dr. Karl Kirkland, the court-appointed psychologist on whom the state court had relied in finding Madison to be competent. The appeal argued that Kirkland's opinions were not credible because "he was suffering from a substance abuse disorder, using forged prescriptions to obtain controlled substances just four days after the hearing in this case and was ultimately charged with four felonies and suspended from the practice of psychology." After a brief hearing in a Mobile County court, the judge denied relief in a single sentence, saying that Madison "did not provide a substantial threshold showing of insanity." Because no appeal was available in the Alabama court system, Madison brought his appeal directly to the Supreme Court. This time, his appeal notes, the Court is not constrained by the federal habeas statute. Justices Sotomayor and Breyer both issued separate concurring opinions in November, with Justice Sotomayor pointing out that "whether a State may administer the death penalty to a person whose disability leaves him without memory of his commission of a capital offense" is a question that has yet to be addressed by the Court, and Justice Breyer expressing his belief that the Court should take up the question of the constitutionality of the death penalty rather than develop law specific to older, infirm death-row prisoners. In 1994, the sentencing jury in Madison's case recommended that he be sentenced to life without parole, but the trial judge overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Madison to death. In 2017, Alabama abolished the practice of judicial override.