• 2007: Virginia leg­is­la­ture passed 5 death-penal­ty expan­sion bills, which were vetoed by Gov. Tim Kaine. The leg­is­la­ture over­rode his vetoes for bills mak­ing mur­der of a wit­ness or a judge a capital offense.
  • Virginia Legislators And Victims Speak Against Death Penalty Two Virginia law­mak­ers who have had a fam­i­ly mem­ber mur­dered recent­ly spoke in oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty. During a sen­ate com­mit­tee hear­ing on a bill to impose a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions, Senators Henry L. Marsh III and Janet D. Howell not­ed that their oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty was based in their expe­ri­ence of los­ing a loved one to mur­der. Howell’s father-in-law was mur­dered in his home eight years ago. She not­ed, Up until then, I was in favor of the death penal­ty. But when my father-in-law was mur­dered, I dis­cov­ered that the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a death sen­tence on some­one did not uni­fy my fam­i­ly; it splin­tered my fam­i­ly. One of the rea­sons that I had always sup­port­ed the death penal­ty was sud­den­ly not there any­more.” Marsh added that his broth­er was shot eight years ago. Though Marsh momen­tar­i­ly ques­tioned his oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty, he stat­ed that his broth­er’s mur­der and the events that fol­lowed made him even more con­vinced that there could be inno­cent peo­ple sen­tenced to death. The leg­is­la­tion failed to pass out of com­mit­tee. (Washington Post, January 17, 2006). See Victims and New Voices.
  • Passed a bill in May 2003, regard­ing the exemp­tion of the men­tal­ly retard­ed from the death penal­ty. Retardation, described as sig­nif­i­cant­ly sub­av­er­age intel­lec­tu­al func­tion­ing,” is to be deter­mined by the jury (or by the judge in non-jury tri­als) as a part of the sen­tenc­ing phase. For more infor­ma­tion regard­ing this leg­is­la­tion, Click Here.
  • On May 2, 2001, Gov. James Gilmore signed a bill to allow death row inmates access to DNA test­ing after their con­vic­tions. The leg­is­la­tion sets up pro­ce­dures for the preser­va­tion of foren­sic evi­dence and allows inmates to peti­tion the Virginia Supreme Court for a writ of actu­al inno­cence” requir­ing the inmate to be released when he can prove his inno­cence using DNA evi­dence. The bill cre­ates a sig­nif­i­cant excep­tion to the state’s 21-day rule,” which bars appeals based on new evi­dence any lat­er than 21 days after sen­tenc­ing. The part of the leg­is­la­tion autho­riz­ing the Court to hear a writ of actu­al inno­cence” requires a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment. SJR 419 which pro­pos­es the amend­ment, was passed by both cham­bers and does not need action by the Governor. However, it will have to be passed again by the leg­is­la­ture in 2002 and then approved by the vot­ers in the November 2002 election.
  • Virginia Governor Gilmore signed a bill that autho­rizes the Virginia Supreme Court to set stan­dards for attor­neys defend­ing death penalty cases.
  • The bipar­ti­san Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission announced that they will study the fair­ness of Virginia’s death penal­ty. The Commission plans to exam­ine Virginia’s 21-day rule which pro­hibits defen­dants from intro­duc­ing new evi­dence, includ­ing DNA test­ing, three weeks after sen­tenc­ing. The Virginia Supreme Court has already pro­posed a new pro­ce­dure that would allow evi­dence of inno­cence to get a court hear­ing after the 21-day dead­line. The Commission will also inves­ti­gate whether the death penal­ty is applied fair­ly across racial groups and whether defen­dants in cap­i­tal cas­es are get­ting ade­quate rep­re­sen­ta­tion in court. The review could also focus on the fair­ness of exe­cut­ing those who are men­tal­ly retard­ed or who were juve­niles at the time of their crimes. The Commission study is expect­ed to take up to a year and plans to pro­pose changes to the death penal­ty in time for the leg­isla­tive ses­sion, which starts in January.