Death Penalty News and Developments for October 14 — October 202019

NEWS — October 18: The Nebraska Supreme Court has dis­missed a chal­lenge to the state’s exe­cu­tion pro­to­col brought by the Rev. Stephen C. Griffith and State Senator Ernie Chambers, who had alleged that the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services had failed to com­ply with statu­to­ri­ly and con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly required pro­ce­dures in adopt­ing the pro­to­col. The court did not uphold the pro­to­col, but ruled that Griffith and Chambers lacked stand­ing to chal­lenge it because they do not face death sen­tences” and the pro­to­col there­fore does not impair or threat­en to inter­fere with their legal rights.”


NEWS — October 17: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a dis­trict court rul­ing that over­turned the death sen­tence imposed on Georgia death-row pris­on­er Lawrence Jefferson in 1986. The court found that Jefferson’s tri­al coun­sel had been inef­fec­tive for fail­ing to inves­ti­gate and present avail­able mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence, includ­ing ignor­ing a request by a defense men­tal health expert to have Jefferson test­ed for brain dam­age result­ing from an acci­dent when he was two years old in which his head had been run over by an automobile. 

The rul­ing came nine years after the U.S. Supreme Court had vacat­ed an ear­li­er deci­sion by the cir­cuit court that had dis­missed Jefferson’s inef­fec­tive assis­tance claim. This time, the appeals court ruled that the state courts had failed to pro­vide Jefferson a full and fair post-con­vic­tion hear­ing when — with­out chang­ing a word and with­out giv­ing Jefferson’s lawyers an oppor­tu­ni­ty to respond — the tri­al judge adopt­ed an order pro­posed by the pros­e­cu­tion that con­tained glar­ing errors, includ­ing describ­ing wit­ness­es who had never testified.


NEWS — October 16: Georgia has issued a death war­rant sched­ul­ing the exe­cu­tion of Ray Jefferson Cromartie for the sev­en-day peri­od between October 30 and November 6. The tri­al court recent­ly denied Cromartie’s motion to per­mit DNA test­ing of phys­i­cal evi­dence in the case and issued the death war­rant before he could obtain review of that rul­ing by the Georgia Supreme Court. Cromartie’s lawyers argue that the wit­ness­es against Cromartie have recant­ed their tes­ti­mo­ny or had motive to lie and that DNA test­ing will show that he was not the shoot­er. See Upcoming Executions.


NEWS — October 16: The U.S. Department of Justice has post­ed notice in the Federal Register seek­ing pub­lic com­ment on the pro­posed exten­sion of infor­ma­tion gath­er­ing for the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Capital Punishment Report of Inmates Under Sentence of Death. Each year, BJS col­lects infor­ma­tion on the demo­graph­ic char­ac­ter­is­tics of pris­on­ers on death row, their legal sta­tus at the time of the cap­i­tal offense, the cap­i­tal offense for which they are impris­oned, the num­ber of death sen­tences imposed, crim­i­nal his­to­ry infor­ma­tion, the rea­son for their removal from death row and their cur­rent sta­tus if they are no longer under sen­tence of death, includ­ing the method of exe­cu­tion or cause of death by means oth­er than exe­cu­tion. BJS also col­lects infor­ma­tion on the sta­tus of state and fed­er­al death penal­ty laws and any changes to those laws that occurred dur­ing the course of the year. The dead­line for sub­mit­ting com­ments is December 16.


NEWS — October 15: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has over­turned the death sen­tence imposed on James McWilliams by an Alabama tri­al judge in 1986. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Alabama had uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly denied McWilliams the assis­tance of an inde­pen­dent men­tal health expert at his tri­al and returned the case to the 11th Circuit to deter­mine whether McWilliams was enti­tled to a new sen­tenc­ing hear­ing. The appeals court ruled that the denial of expert assis­tance was struc­tur­al error” that required grant­i­ng McWilliams a new sen­tenc­ing hear­ing with­out need for a case-spe­cif­ic con­sid­er­a­tion of prej­u­dice. Judge Adalberto Jordan dis­agreed that the error was struc­tur­al, but con­curred in the out­come on the grounds that the vio­la­tion was prej­u­di­cial to McWilliams.