Publications & Testimony

The North Carolina Supreme Court heard argu­ments on November 18 on whether the state’s Medical Board can sanc­tion doc­tors who par­tic­i­pate in an exe­cu­tion. The Board for­bids physi­cian par­tic­i­pa­tion in exe­cu­ti­ions as a vio­la­tion of the med­ical code of ethics. At the same time, North Carolina’s death penal­ty statute requires a physician’s pres­ence at all executions.A Wake County judge ruled last year that the Medical Board had over­stepped its author­i­ty and the state law took prece­dence, a…

On November 10 in Richmond, Virginia, thir­ty for­mer FBI agents held a press con­fer­ence call­ing for the par­don of four sailors, known as the Norfolk Four, who were con­vict­ed of rape and mur­der. Their con­vic­tions were based main­ly on their own con­fes­sions, which were appar­ent­ly made out of fear that they might oth­er­wise receive the death penal­ty. The FBI agents point­ed out that DNA and foren­sic evi­dence now points to a prison inmate who has con­fessed as the sole per­pe­tra­tor of the crimes. They…

A recent edi­to­r­i­al in The Journal Star (Lincoln, Nebraska) expressed the paper’s shock at how the death penal­ty dis­tort­ed a state crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion to the extent that six inno­cent peo­ple were con­vict­ed of a mur­der they did not com­mit. Defendants were pres­sured to offer erro­neous tes­ti­mo­ny through the threat of fac­ing the death penal­ty. ​“The wrong­ful con­vic­tions show how the death penal­ty can dis­tort the search for jus­tice,” the edi­to­r­i­al stat­ed. ​“Investigators supplied…

A Florida inmate faces exe­cu­tion despite new rev­e­la­tions that the state prompt­ed a tri­al wit­ness to lie. Inmate Wayne Tompkins was to be exe­cut­ed in Florida on October 28, 2008, but was grant­ed a stay of exe­cu­tion to allow time for the state Supreme Court to review his case. On November 7, the court denied Tompkins’ appeal, even though the court acknowl­edged that a state wit­ness, a jail­house infor­mant, admit­ted to pro­vid­ing false tes­ti­mo­ny at Tompkins’ orig­i­nal trial in…

Utah’s Supreme Court recent­ly expressed con­cern that the lack of qual­i­fied defense attor­neys for indi­gent death row inmates could unrav­el cap­i­tal sen­tences. In a unan­i­mous deci­sion in the case of death row inmate Michael Archuleta, Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins (pic­tured) said the court might be forced to reverse cap­i­tal sen­tences because the low pay and the com­plex­i­ty of such cas­es have shrunk the pool of Utah attor­neys who will accept them. ​“It…

A recent edi­to­r­i­al in The Virginian-Pilot points to the prob­lem of arbi­trari­ness in apply­ing the death penal­ty. The edi­to­r­i­al asks, ​“Is it right to look at who the vic­tims were? Is it fair to con­sid­er the strength of the evi­dence and the time and resources required to pur­sue the death penal­ty, a cost­ly process? Does it make a crime less impor­tant, a vic­tim’s life less mem­o­rable, if pros­e­cu­tors decide that life in a tiny prison cell is pun­ish­ment enough for the killer?” The editorial…

Professor Bruce Winick of the Miami School of Law has writ­ten an arti­cle argu­ing that the Supreme Court should extend the pro­tec­tion it present­ly offers to those with men­tal retar­da­tion and juve­niles to offend­ers with severe men­tal ill­ness, as well. In The Supreme Court’s Emerging Death Penalty Jurisprudence: Severe Mental Illness as the Next Frontier, Winick reviews the High Court’s analy­sis of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment under the Eighth Amendment with a focus on when the Court has…

The Death Penalty Information Center offers unique resources on its Web page Special from DPIC. Visitors will find use­ful fea­tures and research materials,…

On November 3, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a non-cap­i­tal case from Alaska in which the defen­dant asserts that the con­sti­tu­tion requires the state to allow DNA test­ing on evi­dence from his tri­al so that he can prove his inno­cence. In District Attorney’s Office v Osborne (No 08 – 6), the Court will ini­tial­ly con­sid­er whether William Osborne may bring a civ­il rights claim (under 42 USC 1983) demon­strat­ing that the state has vio­lat­ed his con­sti­tu­tion­al right to due…