Publications & Testimony

The Georgia Pardons and Parole Board com­mut­ed Samuel Crowe’s death sen­tence to life with­out parole just two and a half hours before his sched­uled exe­cu­tion on May 22, 2008. The five-mem­ber Board’s state­ment said,​“After care­ful and exhaus­tive con­sid­er­a­tion of the request, the board vot­ed to grant clemen­cy.” The Board had heard from sev­er­al peo­ple who knew Crowe, includ­ing pas­tors and a for­mer cor­rec­tions offi­cer, who said,​“I felt like if they released him that…

In a poten­tial death penal­ty case in Houston, Texas, a jury sen­tenced Juan Quintero to life with­out parole on May 20 for the mur­der of a police offi­cer. One juror, Tiffany Moore, described her expe­ri­ence as very emo­tion­al,​“I was torn up. I was crying.…I still feel we came to the right deci­sion,” she said.​“We could nev­er bring Rodney back. I feel very sad for the fam­i­ly, los­ing a loved one.” Moore added that the sen­tenc­ing phase was more dif­fi­cult for the jury than the…

Former mem­bers of the New Jersey Supreme Court recent­ly shared their insights on the death penal­ty at a sym­po­sium spon­sored by Seton Hall and Fordham law schools, and by the the New York City and New Jersey State Bar asso­ci­a­tions. Five for­mer mem­bers of the Court, includ­ing two chief jus­tices, reviewed the 25 years of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in New Jersey before 2007’s repeal of the death penal­ty. Their con­clu­sions echoed the opin­ion of Justice Barry Albin in…

A fed­er­al judge in Delaware extend­ed a stay on all exe­cu­tions in the state on May 15, 2008, pend­ing an evi­den­tiary hear­ing sched­uled for June. One exe­cu­tion in Delaware was stayed by the same judge, District Court Judge Sue L. Robinson (pic­tured), in May 2006, pend­ing a deter­mi­na­tion of the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the state’s use of lethal injec­tion. In 2007, the impact of the even­tu­al rul­ing in that case was extend­ed to all of the state’s death row inmates. The stay…

Earl Berry is sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed on May 21 in Mississippi, despite evi­dence that he has men­tal retar­da­tion. Judicial review of this evi­dence has been denied because his for­mer lawyers failed to file the evi­dence in a time­ly fash­ion. This would be the sec­ond exe­cu­tion since the U.S. Supreme Court approved Kentucky’s method of lethal injec­tion on April 16. Last month, a psy­chol­o­gist con­clud­ed that Berry had an IQ of 75 or below and​“sig­nif­i­cant­ly…

Maryland Governor O’Malley signed leg­is­la­tion cre­at­ing a com­mis­sion to study the death penal­ty on May 13. The Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment is man­dat­ed to reflect on all sides of the issue and its mem­bers will include rep­re­sen­ta­tives from law enforce­ment, a pros­e­cu­tor, a pub­lic defend­er, and fam­i­ly mem­bers of mur­der vic­tims. The com­mis­sion begins its work in July and should sub­mit its find­ings by December 15, 2008. The following…

The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective by Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle is the Fourth Edition of a text that high­lights the lat­est devel­op­ments in the death penal­ty around the world. Roger Hood uti­lizes his expe­ri­ence as a con­sul­tant to the United Nations’ annu­al sur­vey of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in com­pil­ing a wide range of infor­ma­tion from non-gov­­ern­­men­­tal orga­ni­za­tions and aca­d­e­m­ic lit­er­a­ture. The book explores both the advances in legal challenges to…

William Neukom, the President of the American Bar Association, recent­ly wrote about the death penal­ty in con­junc­tion with a vis­it to Duke University Law School in North Carolina, where he addressed the grad­u­at­ing class. In an op-ed, Mr. Neukom not­ed that the ABA had close­ly stud­ied the death penal­ty sys­tems of eight states and found repeat­ed fail­ures to meet min­i­mum stan­dards advo­cat­ed by the ABA. He renewed the call of the ABA for a halt…

On May 12, the U.S. Supreme Court grant­ed cer­tio­rari in Bell v. Kelly, No. 07 – 1223, where the peti­tion­er chal­lenged a low­er court’s dis­missal of his claim of inef­fec­tive­ness of coun­sel. Edward Nathaniel Bell stat­ed that his tri­al lawyers pre­sent­ed no mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence on his behalf at his sen­tenc­ing hear­ing, despite the exis­tence of many sym­pa­thet­ic facts that might have led a jury to vote for a life sen­tence. The state court pre­sent­ed with this…

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court threw out the death sen­tence of con­vict­ed mur­der­er Adam Miranda and ordered a new sen­tenc­ing tri­al, rul­ing that Los Angeles County pros­e­cu­tors failed to dis­close key infor­ma­tion that like­ly affect­ed the sen­tenc­ing of Miranda. A Los Angeles Times edi­to­r­i­al high­lights the arbi­trari­ness of this case, not­ing that many defen­dants with­out ded­i­cat­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tion might not have fared so well. This edi­to­r­i­al asks about…