Massachusetts Again Votes Overwhelmingly Against Reinstating Death Penalty After over an hour of debate, the Massachusetts House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to reinstate the death penalty. Prior to the 110 – 46 vote, Governor Deval Patrick had vowed to veto the bill if it were approved. The bill was similar to one submitted by former Governor Mitt Romney as a “gold standard” for capital punishment. State Representatives cited high costs and the possibility for human error as reasons for rejecting the bill. Rep. Sean F. Curran, D‑Springfield stated, “I have always been opposed to the death penalty. The justice system is made up of people, and sometimes people make mistakes. When you’re talking about the death penalty, there is no room for error.” Since 1997, when the House narrowly defeated a bill reinstating the death penalty, the number of Representatives voting against subsequent death penalty bills increased with an 80 – 73 vote in 1999 and a 92 – 60 vote in 2001. During Governor Romney’s term in 2005, the death penalty bill was rejected 99 – 53. The last execution in Massachusetts was in 1947. (“House Rejects Death Penalty” by Dan Ring, The Republican)
On March 12, 2001, the Massachusetts House, by a 94 – 60 vote, defeated efforts to reinstate the death penalty. Among the reasons cited for voting against bringing back capital punishment was the recent exonerations of Peter Limone and Joseph Salvati, both of whom served over 30 years in prison for crimes they did not commit.
Massachusetts Legislation Prior to 2007 | Death Penalty Information Center
Capital Case Roundup — Death Penalty Court Decisions the Week of July 27, 2020
NEWS (7/31/20) — Boston, MA: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has overturned the death sentence imposed on Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. In a 2 – 1 decision, a panel of the court ruled that Tsarnaev’s death sentence violated the “core promise of our criminal-justice system … that even the very worst among us deserves to be fairly tried and lawfully punished.” The panel found that the trial judge’s failure to question 9 of the 12 seated jurors about what they had read and heard about the bombing required that Tsarnaev’s death sentence be reversed.
The appeals court also overturned three of Tsarnaev’s convictions for carrying a firearm during crimes of violence, although that will have no impact on his murder convictions. It ordered the district court “to enter judgments of acquittal on [those] charges, empanel a new jury, and preside over a new trial strictly limited to what penalty [Tsarnaev] should get on the death-eligible counts.”
NEWS (7/31/20) — California: A split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has granted a new trial to California death-row prisoner Marvin Walker, who has been on the state’s death row for 40 years. Judges Susan P. Graber and Ronald Lee Gilman court ruled that Santa Clara County prosecutors had impermissibly exercised their discretionary jury strikes on the basis of race to remove all three Black potential jurors from service in the case.
In dissent, Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace wrote he would have upheld Walker’s conviction because “the California Supreme Court was not ‘objectively unreasonable’ in concluding that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges for race-neutral reasons.”
NEWS (7/30/20) — California: The California Supreme Court granted a new trial to Paul Henderson, sentenced to death in Riverside County in May 2001. The direct appeal process took the California courts 19 years to complete. The court ruled that Henderson’s conviction was tainted by statements obtained as a result of police questioning after he had invoked his right to counsel, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
NEWS (7/28/20) — North Carolina: A New Hanover County post-conviction court has granted a new trial to North Carolina death-row prisoner Keith Wiley, sentenced to death in May 1999. Judge R. Kent Harrell ruled that the trial court improperly refused to allow defense counsel to strike an impaneled juror after the trial started when a juror who had previously denied knowing anyone associated with the case later indicated that he knew the victim and that his sister and mother knew the victim’s mother through the family’s business. The court also ruled that Wiley’s appeal lawyer was ineffective when she failed to raise the issue during his direct appeal.
