Publications & Testimony

In a dis­cus­sion at the University of Florida Law School, for­mer U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that recent research reveals that Texas almost cer­tain­ly exe­cut­ed an innocent…

The U.S. Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) banned the exe­cu­tion of indi­vid­u­als with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties (men­tal retar­da­tion), but allowed each state to set guide­lines for deter­min­ing whether an inmate has such a con­di­tion. In Georgia, cap­i­tal defen­dants are required to prove​“men­tal retar­da­tion” beyond a rea­son­able doubt. It is the only state in the coun­try that sets such a high bur­den of proof for such claims. Warren Hill had a strong…

On January 23 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a chal­lenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dures, par­tic­u­lar­ly its use of mida­zo­lam that was used in three botched exe­cu­tions in 2014. Four Oklahoma inmates asked the Court to review the state’s pro­ce­dures, but one of them, Charles Warner, was exe­cut­ed before the Court agreed to take the case. It is like­ly the oth­er three defen­dants will be grant­ed stays. When Warner…

UPDATE: (1/​27). Ladd was denied a stay by the TX Ct. of Crim. Appeals. Robert Ladd is sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed in Texas on January 29, despite hav­ing an IQ of 67, an indi­ca­tion of intel­lec­tial dis­abil­i­ty ren­der­ing him inel­i­gi­ble for exe­cu­tion. Howver, Texas courts reject­ed Ladd’s pre­vi­ous appeal because the state has a unique way of eval­u­at­ing intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty. Courts in Texas often con­sid­er what is…

According to a recent arti­cle in the New Yorker, it has been dif­fcult select­ing a jury for the tri­al of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of the Boston Marathon bomb­ing. Many of the 1,350 peo­ple who filled out a juror ques­tion­naire have been elim­i­nat­ed from ser­vice based on their writ­ten answers. But even of those who remain, only a few have been found suf­fi­cient­ly impar­tial regard­ing Tsarnaev’s guilt or inno­cence and on potential sentences,…

On January 20 the U.S. Supreme Court (7 – 2) grant­ed Missouri death row inmate Mark Christeson new attor­neys to assist him in pur­su­ing his fed­er­al appeal. Christeson’s appoint­ed attor­neys missed a cru­cial fil­ing dead­line for his fed­er­al appeal, not even meet­ing with him until a month after the dead­line. New attor­neys offered to rep­re­sent Christeson, argu­ing that his cur­rent attor­neys had a con­flict of inter­est, since…

S. Helman,​“Defending those accused of unthink­able crimes,” Boston Globe Magazine, Jan. 21, 2015.R. Tabak,​“The Private Bar’s Efforts to Secure Proper Representation for Those Facing Execution,” 29 Justice System Journal 356 (2008).Talbot D’Alemberte, Raising the Bar in Capital Cases, Human Rights, American Bar Association, Spring 2007 • Vol. 34, No. 2. Deborah Fleischaker, ABA State Death…

A recent edi­to­r­i­al in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reit­er­at­ed its oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty, even as Missouri pre­pares to exe­cute the man con­vict­ed of killing a for­mer Post-Dispatch reporter. Marcellus Williams is sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed on January 28 for the mur­der of Lisha Gayle (pic­tured), who left her job as a jour­nal­ist three years before she was killed. The paper not­ed Gayle’s like­ly oppo­si­tion to the death penalty:…

Georgia has set an exe­cu­tion date of January 27 for Warren Hill, an inmate diag­nosed with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties (for­mer­ly referred to as​“men­tal retar­da­tion”). If Hill was con­vict­ed in any oth­er state in the coun­try, he almost cer­tain­ly would be inel­i­gi­ble for the death penal­ty. The U.S. Supreme Court banned the exe­cu­tion of peo­ple with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ties in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), but allowed states to…

On January 14, the U.S. Supreme Court (6 – 3) hand­ed down a rul­ing in Jennings v. Stephens, a cap­i­tal case from Texas deal­ing with inef­fec­tive assis­tance of coun­sel. The Court held that when a defen­dant wins relief in a low­er fed­er­al court and the state appeals, the defen­dant may offer the­o­ries reject­ed by the low­er court as part of his defense of the relief grant­ed. He does not have to file a new appeal on that…