For the First Time, No Death Sentences in Chicago in 2003

In the year since for­mer Illinois Governor George Ryan’s deci­sion to grant clemen­cy to all those await­ing exe­cu­tion in the state, no one has been sen­tenced to death in Cook County, which includes Chicago. This marks the first time since Illinois rein­stat­ed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in 1977 that the coun­ty has not had a death sen­tence. Cook County has his­tor­i­cal­ly sent the high­est annu­al num­ber of defen­dants to death row. Although Illinois cur­rent­ly has a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions in place, pros­e­cu­tors are still able to seek the death penal­ty for defen­dants accused of cap­i­tal crimes. (Chicago Tribune, January 2, 2004) See DPIC’s 2003 Year End Report.

Jurors Sentence Lee Malvo to Life Without Parole

Jurors in Virginia sen­tenced juve­nile offend­er Lee Boyd Malvo to life in prison with­out parole after find­ing him guilty of mur­der­ing Linda Franklin, who was one of 10 vic­tims killed dur­ing a series of shoot­ings in October 2002. Malvo was 17 at the time of the crime. Attorney General John Ashcroft had cit­ed Virginia’s abil­i­ty to impose the ulti­mate sanc­tion” in send­ing Malvo and his men­tor, John Muhammad, to Virginia for pros­e­cu­tion. Virginia is one of only 21 states that allow the exe­cu­tion of those who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crime. Since the death penal­ty was rein­stat­ed in 1976, Virginia is one of only six states that have exe­cut­ed some­one whose crime was com­mit­ted as a juve­nile. (Associated Press, December 23, 2003). See Juveniles.

New York Appeals Court Overturns Second Death Sentence


New York’s high­est court has over­turned the death sen­tence of James F. Cahill, one of six men remain­ing on the state’s death row. The Court found that the tri­al judge made errors in screen­ing the jurors who con­vict­ed Cahill and sen­tenced him to death. In its 4 – 2 rul­ing, the Court also not­ed that pros­e­cu­tors had not proven the aggra­vat­ing fac­tors” required by New York’s death penal­ty law. Cahill will now serve a sen­tence of life in prison. (New York Times, November 262003)
Despite the fact that New York has spent tens of mil­lions of dol­lars on death penal­ty pros­e­cu­tions, both cas­es reviewed by the state’s high­est court have been reduced to life sen­tences. See Costs.

Washington Judge States Death Penalty No Longer Has Validity”


In a Seattle Times op-ed reflect­ing on the plea agree­ment for ser­i­al killer Gary Ridgway result­ing in a life with­out parole sen­tence (read more), Washington State Superior Court Judge David A. Nichols stat­ed that the death penal­ty as a response to any crim­i­nal behav­ior no longer has valid­i­ty and should be repealed, because it is impos­si­ble to admin­is­ter with jus­tice and fair­ness.” He further noted:

We are a nation of laws, ide­al­ly applied fair­ly and pro­por­tion­al­ly; but we have 50 dif­fer­ent death-penal­ty laws, all of which have dif­fer­ent cri­te­ria of appli­ca­tion. Whether or not to charge or pur­sue the death penal­ty is left entire­ly up to elect­ed pros­e­cut­ing attor­neys, who are often dri­ven by polit­i­cal, social or finan­cial con­straints; or, as in this case, cir­cum­stances which cause the pros­e­cu­tor to back down.

Gross num­bers of exe­cu­tions are being car­ried out in some states or regions of the coun­try. An alarm­ing num­ber of con­vic­tions have been found to be wrong, and the death penal­ty is unfair­ly inflict­ed upon the poor, minori­ties and the under-represented.

There is sim­ply no way the death penal­ty statute can be admin­is­tered fair­ly. There are too many vari­ables and incon­sis­ten­cies to allow any per­son inter­est­ed in jus­tice to support.

With its repeal, we would stop its inequitable appli­ca­tion, the uncon­scionable costs asso­ci­at­ed with its admin­is­tra­tion, and the end­less appeals. There is per­haps a risk that by giv­ing up the death penal­ty, we would sur­ren­der lever­age we might have against a Gary Ridgway to reveal the details of what he did, but that is a small price to pay for get­ting rid of that part of the crim­i­nal code that mocks our notions of jus­tice under the law.

A life of incar­cer­a­tion with no hope of ever get­ting out may seem a small penal­ty to pay when applied to the worst of our wrong­do­ers, but the death penal­ty has no place in a sen­tenc­ing scheme that strives for jus­tice and fair­ness to all our citizens.”

(Seattle Times, November 8, 2003) See New Voices.

Serial Killer Receives Life Sentence While 3,500 Others Face Execution


In a plea agree­ment reached with Washington state pros­e­cu­tors, Gary Ridgway, a Seattle-area man who admit­ted to 48 mur­ders since 1982, will serve a sen­tence of life in prison with­out parole. Prosecutors spared Ridgway from exe­cu­tion in exchange for his coop­er­a­tion in lead­ing police to the remains of still-miss­ing vic­tims. (Associated Press, November 5, 2003) The state’s plea agree­ment rais­es ques­tions of pro­por­tion­al­i­ty in sen­tenc­ing when com­pared with the oth­er inmates on the state’s death row. The arbi­trary and unpre­dictable appli­ca­tion of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment once led the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the death penal­ty was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al in 1972. In Furman v. Georgia, one of the con­cur­ring Justices described receiv­ing the death penal­ty as ran­dom as being struck by light­ning” – the facts of the crime car­ried lit­tle weight in pre­dict­ing who would receive capital punishment.

25 Year-old Death Sentence Unanimously Reversed by Alabama Supreme Court


On October 3, 2003, the Alabama Supreme Court unan­i­mous­ly reversed Phillip Tomlin’s death sen­tence and ordered him resen­tenced to life in prison with­out parole, mark­ing the Court’s first rul­ing to cre­ate a stan­dard of review for judi­cial over­ride in the state. Tomlin had been on death row for more than 25 years despite the fact that four juries have rec­om­mend­ed that he receive a life sen­tence for his alleged role in a Mobile, Alabama, revenge killing. In each of those cas­es, the tri­al judge over­rode the jury to impose a death sen­tence because Tomlin’s co-defen­dant, John Daniels, was sent to death row. In its deci­sion, the Court not­ed, It would be incon­sis­tent to hold that Daniels’s sen­tence could prop­er­ly be used to under­mine the jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion of life impris­on­ment with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole.” The Court’s opin­ion also not­ed an ear­li­er Alabama Supreme Court rul­ing that con­clud­ed that even a 10 – 2 jury rec­om­men­da­tion should be giv­en strong con­sid­er­a­tion by the sen­tenc­ing judge. Tomlin was rep­re­sent­ed by his pro-bono attor­ney, University of Chicago law pro­fes­sor Bernard Harcourt. Mobile Register, October 4, 2003, and Attorney Press Release, October 72003).

Federal Judge Declares Electrocution Unconstitutional and Ring v. Arizona to be Retroactive


In a deci­sion vacat­ing the death penal­ty for Nebraska death row inmate Charles Jess Palmer, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon declared that elec­tro­cu­tion is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Bataillon wrote, In light of evi­dence and evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy, the court would find that a death penal­ty sen­tence imposed on a defen­dant in a state that pro­vides elec­tro­cu­tion as its only method of exe­cu­tion is an unnec­es­sary and wan­ton inflic­tion of pain.” Nebraska is the only state that main­tains elec­tro­cu­tion as its sole method of exe­cu­tion. Bataillon’s rul­ing also stat­ed that the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona — which held that it is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to have a judge, rather than a jury, decide eli­gi­bil­i­ty for a death sen­tence — is retroac­tive and applies to Palmer’s case. The judge fur­ther decried the lengthy peri­od of time Palmer has spent on death row. Palmer remains incar­cer­at­ed with a sen­tence of life impris­on­ment. (Lincoln Journal Star, October 10, 2003) See Ring v. Arizona, and Methods of Execution.

Death Penalty Declines in Key Areas


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Pima County, Arizona have been the main juris­dic­tions in their respec­tive states for death sen­tences in the past. Now they are send­ing con­sid­er­ably few­er peo­ple to death row or seek­ing the death penal­ty less. Philadelphia pros­e­cu­tors have sought the death penal­ty 24 times since last September, but jurors from the city have not sent any­one to death row in more than a year. In fact, the city has only secured death sen­tences against 4 peo­ple since 2000. In the major­i­ty of cas­es where jurors have cho­sen not to send defen­dants to death row, they have imposed a sen­tence of life in prison with­out parole. Cathie Abookire, a spokes­woman for Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham, not­ed: When some­one wants to plead guilty to the crime of mur­der, and we know that life means life in Pennyslvania, then we are all for it. It gives the fam­i­ly some peace of mind, because it is over. There are not going to be 20 years of appeals.” (Associated Press, October 32003)
Similarly, the num­ber of death sen­tences pur­sued in Pima County, Arizona has decreased by a third. We’ve made a con­scious effort to lim­it the death notices to the worst cas­es. We have a fuller dis­cus­sion about can we — and should we — pur­sue death. It’s a more thought­ful process,” said pros­e­cu­tor Rick Unklesbay. The pol­i­cy shift was embraced by vic­tim advo­cate Gail Leland, who stat­ed, I think the process and the options that we have now regard­ing sen­tenc­ing have real­ly been improved.” (Associated Press, October 52003).

Fewer Death Sentences Sought in New York


Eight years after the death penal­ty was rein­stat­ed in New York, the num­ber of death sen­tences sought by pros­e­cu­tors has sharply declined. According to the New York Capital Defender Office, the num­ber of death penal­ty notices filed has dropped from a record-high 14 in 1998 to just two so far in 2003. Howard R. Relin, a long-time dis­trict attor­ney in Rochester and death penal­ty sup­port­er, not­ed: D.A.‘s are being more and more care­ful in mak­ing that deter­mi­na­tion. There’s a sense of real­ism that has set in to pros­e­cu­tors around New York State, as a result of the jury ver­dicts we have seen through­out the state.” Richard Brown, the Queens dis­trict attor­ney, added that pros­e­cu­tors have come to under­stand that the suf­fer­ing of mur­der vic­tims’ rel­a­tives is often pro­longed in death penal­ty cas­es because of the years of legal war­fare and that cap­i­tal cas­es are a drain on pros­e­cu­tors’ time and bud­gets. He stat­ed, Particularly at a time of fis­cal cri­sis, it is very dif­fi­cult to jus­ti­fy tak­ing expe­ri­enced pros­e­cu­tors away from han­dling oth­er vio­lent felonies.” Death sen­tenc­ing has also been declin­ing in oth­er states around the coun­try. (New York Times, September 212003)

Judge Imposes Life Sentence for Victims’ Sake


Baltimore County Judge Dana M. Levitz recent­ly sen­tenced a man con­vict­ed of mur­der to two life terms with­out parole, in part because of its pos­si­ble effects on the vic­tims’ fam­i­lies. Levitz said, The dev­as­tat­ing effect that this unend­ing lit­i­ga­tion has on the inno­cent fam­i­lies of the vic­tims is incal­cu­la­ble. By impos­ing a death sen­tence, I ensure that the vic­tim’s fam­i­lies will be sub­ject­ed to many more years of appeals.” Family mem­bers also not­ed that the deci­sion gave them the peace of mind they have been search­ing for. A sis­ter of the vic­tim not­ed, I’m pleased with the sen­tence because I think I might get some clo­sure from this. I did­n’t want him out on the street any­more, but killing him was­n’t the answer either.” (Baltimore Sun, July 26, 2003). See Victims.

New York Times Magazine Examines Why Death Penalty Jurors Are Sparing Lives


A recent arti­cle by Alex Kotlowitz in the New York Times Magazine exam­ined why jurors who affirmed their will­ing­ness to impose a death sen­tence are increas­ing­ly vot­ing for life in cap­i­tal cas­es. The article noted:

Over the past few years, detec­tive work and advances in DNA tech­nol­o­gy have uncov­ered a fright­en­ing­ly high num­ber of wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed, espe­cial­ly on death row. But there may be anoth­er, albeit qui­eter, rev­o­lu­tion tak­ing place, out of view, in jury rooms. The num­ber of death sen­tences hand­ed down has dropped pre­cip­i­tous­ly, from a mod­ern-day peak of 319 in 1996 to 229 in 2000, and then to 155 in 2001. And a study released just last month report­ed that in 15 of the last 16 fed­er­al cap­i­tal tri­als, jurors chose life sen­tences over death.

There are a num­ber of fac­tors at work here. In ear­ly 2000, Gov. George Ryan of Illinois, stag­gered by the num­ber of wrong­ful con­vic­tions in his state, declared a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions. It received a good deal of nation­al press and undoubt­ed­ly made some pros­e­cu­tors and jurors more cau­tious. (Last January, Ryan went beyond a mora­to­ri­um; he par­doned four inmates and com­mut­ed the sen­tences of the oth­er 167 on Illinois’s death row.) Additionally, the mur­der rate has been in a steady decline, though that has been going on for some time.

There are two fac­tors, how­ev­er, that more than any­thing else may help explain the decline in death-penal­ty sen­tences. One is the increas­ing avail­abil­i­ty of life with­out parole as an option, which all but three death-penal­ty states now offer. In polls, three-fourths of Americans say they believe in the death penal­ty. But when asked whether they’d sup­port cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment if life with­out parole was an option, the num­ber is reduced to half.

The oth­er con­trib­u­tor, per­haps tougher to mea­sure, is a devel­op­ment over the last decade: an increas­ing num­ber of defense attor­neys have become more skilled and resource­ful in per­suad­ing jurors that the lives of their clients are worth saving.

(New York Times Magazine, July 6, 2003). See Innocence.

Texas Fails to Pass Life Without Parole Bill


The Texas Senate recent­ly reject­ed leg­is­la­tion to pro­vide juries with the sen­tenc­ing option of life in prison with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole. Passage was opposed by some pros­e­cu­tors who feared the sen­tenc­ing option would dis­cour­age juries from giv­ing death sen­tences. The bill was defeat­ed despite the fact that 72% of Texans sup­port the option of life with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole. Texas, which leads the nation in exe­cu­tions, is one of only three death penal­ty states that does not allow life sen­tences with­out parole. (Houston Chronicle, April 232003)

Orange County Juries Reject Death Verdicts in 2002


For the first time in a decade, juries in California’s con­ser­v­a­tive Orange County did not send a sin­gle defen­dant to death row last year. While Orange County juries have a his­to­ry of sid­ing with pros­e­cu­tors in death penal­ty cas­es, each of the four cap­i­tal con­vic­tions sought in 2002 result­ed in a dead­locked jury. In the past, despite its low crime rate, Orange County has sent 47 inmates to California’s death row since the death penal­ty was rein­stat­ed. (Los Angeles Times, January 202003).