The fol­low­ing excerpts are from the death penal­ty chap­ter of the Final Report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System. The blue-rib­bon Committee, appoint­ed in 1999, used a wide vari­ety of sources to draw its con­clu­sions and for­mu­late the rec­om­men­da­tions found in its report.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee made a series of 23 rec­om­men­da­tions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, to the Legislature, to the state’s Attorney General and District Attorneys, and to Governor Ed Rendell. Among the key rec­om­men­da­tions were a call for a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions until the state can fur­ther ana­lyze the impact of race on the death penal­ty, pas­sage of a Racial Justice Act, statewide stan­dards for pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al dis­cre­tion, and statewide stan­dards for both tri­al and appel­late lawyers in cap­i­tal cas­es. (The com­plete list of rec­om­men­da­tions may be found on Pages 219 – 221 of the report.)

To the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

1. Pursuant to its inher­ent pow­er to issue tem­po­rary stays of exe­cu­tion, declare a mora­to­ri­um on the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty in any case where the defen­dan­t’s direct appeal has result­ed in affir­ma­tion by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pend­ing the com­ple­tion of a study inves­ti­gat­ing the impact of the race of the defen­dant and of the vic­tim in pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al deci­sions to seek the death penal­ty and in death sen­tenc­ing out­comes. The mora­to­ri­um should con­tin­ue until poli­cies and pro­ce­dures intend­ed to ensure that the death penal­ty is admin­is­tered fair­ly and impar­tial­ly are imple­ment­ed. (Page 219)
2. Empanel a spe­cial com­mis­sion to study the impact of the race of the defen­dant and of the vic­tim in pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al deci­sions to seek the death penal­ty and in death sen­tenc­ing out­comes. (Page 219)
6. Mandate statewide stan­dards for an inde­pen­dent appoint­ment process of select­ing cap­i­tal coun­sel for all stages of the pros­e­cu­tion, includ­ing tri­al, appeal, and post-con­vic­tion hear­ings. The stan­dards, at a min­i­mum, should incor­po­rate those rec­om­mend­ed by the American Bar Association in its Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases. (Page 219)

To the Legislature

1. Enact a Racial Justice Act, like that of oth­er states, that allows for the admis­sion of evi­dence of a pat­tern and prac­tice of dis­parate treat­ment in both the pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al deci­sion to seek the death penal­ty and in sen­tenc­ing out­comes. (Page 220)
5. Enact leg­is­la­tion declar­ing a mora­to­ri­um on the death penal­ty until such time as poli­cies and pro­ce­dures are imple­ment­ed to ensure that the death penal­ty is being admin­is­tered fair­ly and impar­tial­ly through­out the Commonwealth. (Page 221)

To the Governor

1. Pursuant to his con­sti­tu­tion­al author­i­ty to grant tem­po­rary reprieves, declare a mora­to­ri­um on the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty in any case where the defen­dan­t’s direct appeal has result­ed in affir­ma­tion by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pend­ing the com­ple­tion of a study inves­ti­gat­ing the impact of the race of the defen­dant, and of the vic­tim, in pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al deci­sions to seek the death penal­ty and in death sen­tenc­ing out­comes. The mora­to­ri­um should con­tin­ue until poli­cies and pro­ce­dures intend­ed to ensure that the death penal­ty is admin­is­tered fair­ly and impar­tial­ly are imple­ment­ed. (Page 221)
2. Empanel a spe­cial com­mis­sion to study the impact of the race of the defen­dant and the vic­tim in pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al deci­sions to seek the death penal­ty and in death sen­tenc­ing out­comes. (Page 221)

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical stud­ies con­duct­ed in Pennsylvania to date demon­strate that, at least in some coun­ties, race plays a major, if not over­whelm­ing, role in the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty. (Page 218)

There is a sig­nif­i­cant fail­ure in the deliv­ery of cap­i­tal coun­sel ser­vices to indi­gent cap­i­tal defen­dants in Pennsylvania, one that dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly impacts minor­i­ty com­mu­ni­ties. (Page 218)

OTHER ITEMS

Introduction

Pennsylvania has the nation’s fourth largest death row, with 245 inmates cur­rent­ly under sen­tence of death in the Commonwealth. Although Pennsylvania’s minor­i­ty pop­u­la­tion is 11 per­cent, two-thirds (68 per­cent) of the inmates on death row are minori­ties. Pennsylvania is sec­ond only to Louisiana in the per­cent­age of African Americans on death row. (Page 200)
Based on exist­ing data and stud­ies, the Committee con­clud­ed that there are strong indi­ca­tions that Pennsylvania’s cap­i­tal jus­tice sys­tem does not oper­ate in an even­hand­ed man­ner. At least one coun­ty, Philadelphia, has been exten­sive­ly stud­ied. After con­trol­ling for the seri­ous­ness of the offense and oth­er non-racial fac­tors, researchers there found that African American defen­dants were sen­tenced to death at a sig­nif­i­cant­ly high­er rate than sim­i­lar­ly sit­u­at­ed non-African Americans; researchers fur­ther con­clud­ed that one third of African Americans on death row in Philadelphia County would have received life sen­tences if they were not African American. (Page 201)
Using the American Bar Association stan­dards as a bench­mark, the Committee con­clud­ed that deliv­ery of these (defense) ser­vices is inad­e­quate through­out the Commonwealth. With the excep­tion of Philadelphia, there was a lack of effec­tive stan­dards for appoint­ment of cap­i­tal coun­sel. (Page 202)
The Work Group select­ed by the Committee to ana­lyze this impor­tant issue was com­posed of crim­i­nal jus­tice experts of many out­looks and pro­fes­sions, who were select­ed on the basis of their exper­tise, and with­out regard to their views on the death penal­ty. Its racial­ly and gen­der-diverse mem­ber­ship was well-bal­anced and includ­ed cur­rent and for­mer pros­e­cu­tors and crim­i­nal defense lawyers, a judge, a police offi­cer and an inves­ti­ga­tor. (Page 202)
The abil­i­ty to prove dis­crim­i­na­tion where it exists is beyond the resources of most cap­i­tal defen­dants and an avenue for redress in the courts remains elu­sive, par­tic­u­lar­ly because fed­er­al con­sti­tu­tion­al doc­trine fails to pro­vide an effec­tive rem­e­dy for racial and eth­nic dis­crim­i­na­tion. (Page 202)

Delivery of Counsel Services to Indigent Defendants

The days of expect­ing a gen­er­al prac­ti­tion­er to pro­vide the stan­dard of care required in a cap­i­tal case are long gone. Capital defense is now a high­ly spe­cial­ized field requir­ing prac­ti­tion­ers to suc­cess­ful­ly nego­ti­ate mine­field upon mine­field of exact­ing and arcane death penal­ty law. Any mis­step along the way can lit­er­al­ly mean death for the client. The impor­tance of ensur­ing good rep­re­sen­ta­tion is mag­ni­fied by the recent lim­i­ta­tions Congress placed on fed­er­al review of state court con­vic­tions. (Page 210)
Specifically, the Spangenberg Group found that of the coun­ties sur­veyed, only one met ABA stan­dards for pub­lic defend­ers. Virtually every oth­er coun­ty sur­veyed showed seri­ous defi­cien­cies in its abil­i­ty to deliv­er ser­vices to cap­i­tal defen­dants. (Page 210)
Based on this analy­sis, the Committee con­clud­ed that deliv­ery of cap­i­tal coun­sel ser­vices for the indi­gent in Pennsylvania is inad­e­quate. (Page 213)

The Need for a Racial Justice Act

Despite com­pelling evi­dence of sys­temic race-of-defen­dant and race-of-vic­tim dis­crim­i­na­tion in many juris­dic­tions, not a sin­gle cap­i­tal defen­dant has been grant­ed relief on equal pro­tec­tion grounds. (Page 214)
If a cap­i­tal defen­dant is in fact a vic­tim of racial bias, he or she should be per­mit­ted to raise an infer­ence of dis­crim­i­na­tion by show­ing a pat­tern and prac­tice of dis­parate treat­ment. A Racial Justice Act or com­pa­ra­ble leg­is­la­tion per­mit­ting such evi­dence would ful­fill this goal. (Page 214)

Standards for the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion

No coun­ty pros­e­cu­tor’s office in Pennsylvania employs pub­lic guide­lines defin­ing stan­dards and pro­ce­dures for seek­ing the death penal­ty. Attempts to learn about the inter­nal pro­ce­dures were rebuffed by the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, which advised mem­ber coun­ties not to coop­er­ate with the Committee on this point.