Whats New

DPIC-What’s New

Last updat­ed January 24, 2003

See also,
Special from DPIC and New Links

Another Innocent Inmate Freed From Florida’s Death Row
Florida death row inmate Rudolph Holton was released on January 24, 2003, mak­ing him the 103^rd per­son exon­er­at­ed and freed from death row nation­wide since 1973. Holton’s con­vic­tion for mur­der was over­turned in 2001 and pros­e­cu­tors announced today that the state was drop­ping all charges against Holten, who had spent 16 years on death row. Crucial evi­dence had been with­held from the defense that point­ed to anoth­er per­pe­tra­tor. For more infor­ma­tion on Holton’s release, see DPIC’s Press Release. See also, Innocence.

Connecticut Commission Releases Results of State Death Penalty Study
The Connecticut Commission on the Death Penalty sub­mit­ted its report, ​“Study of the Imposition of the Death Penalty in Connecticut,” to the state General Assembly on January 8, 2003. The Commission was cre­at­ed in 2001 by the General Assembly to study the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem and report back with find­ings and rec­om­men­da­tions. The report found racial and geo­graph­ic dis­par­i­ties in the impo­si­tion of Connecticut’s death penal­ty, and called for fur­ther study. Among the report’s findings are:

• 86% of the crimes result­ing in a death sen­tence involved a white victim
• 89% of the 166 cap­i­tal pros­e­cu­tions since the state rein­stat­ed the death penal­ty in 1973 came from just six judi­cial dis­tricts, and 40% came from Hartford alone.

The Commission’s report pro­vid­ed leg­isla­tive rec­om­men­da­tions for improv­ing the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem, including: 

• an increase in hourly rates for pub­lic defend­ers in death penalty cases;
• rein­stat­ing pro­por­tion­al­i­ty review of each death sen­tence to ensure that it is not exces­sive or dis­pro­por­tion­ate to the sen­tence imposed in similar cases;
• video or audio tap­ing of police inter­ro­ga­tions and con­duct­ing ​“blind” lineups;
• man­dat­ing pre-tri­al deter­mi­na­tions by cap­i­tal tri­al judges to decide the reli­a­bil­i­ty and admis­si­bil­i­ty of jail­house informant testimony;
• preser­va­tion of bio­log­i­cal evi­dence; and
• mak­ing DNA test­ing avail­able to defendants.

(State of Connecticut Commission on the Death Penalty, Study Pursuant to Public Act No. 01 – 151 of the Imposition of the Death Penalty in Connecticut, January 8, 2003) Read the report. See also, Legislative Changes and Studies on the Death Penalty.

NEW RESOURCE: Death Penalty Symposium Examines Religion and the Death Penalty
The New York Central Synagogue’s day-long sym­po­sium, ​“The Death Penalty, Religion, and the Law: Is Our Legal System’s Implementation of Capital Punishment Consistent with Judaism or Christianity?”, is now avail­able on the Web. The resource con­tains expert dis­cus­sion about reli­gious texts and the death penal­ty, and it high­lights relat­ed top­ics such as inno­cence, exe­cut­ing those with men­tal retar­da­tion or men­tal ill­ness, the juve­nile death penal­ty, and death penal­ty mora­to­ri­ums. Read the pre­sen­ta­tions. See also, Studies, Books and Law Reviews.

Georgians Oppose Juvenile Death Penalty
A recent University of Georgia poll found that 60% of Georgians favor try­ing to reha­bil­i­tate young crim­i­nals rather than exe­cut­ing them. Only 23% of respon­dents said courts should be allowed to give chil­dren the death penal­ty. In addi­tion, 81% of those polled believe that judges should be grant­ed greater flex­i­bil­i­ty when deal­ing with con­vict­ed chil­dren than the manda­to­ry sen­tenc­ing rules used for adults. Currently, Georgia law requires juve­niles ages 13 to 18-years-old to be tried in adult court and face adult penal­ties when they are accused of sev­en vio­lent crimes, such as mur­der and rape. (The Augusta Chronicle, January 17, 2003) See Public Opinion and Juvenile Death Penalty.

NEW VOICES: Scott Turow Questions Death Penalty in Government Hands
Scott Turow, for­mer fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tor and author who served on Illinois’s blue-rib­bon Commission on Capital Punishment, reflect­ed on Governor George Ryan’s deci­sion to par­don four men and com­mute the remain­ing death sen­tences in the state (see below):

What hap­pened in Illinois is a cau­tion­ary les­son. Inaction by leg­is­la­tures forces more and more of the respon­si­bil­i­ty for cre­at­ing reme­dies into the hands of gov­ern­ment exec­u­tives or the courts. The solu­tions they arrive at are often unpop­u­lar, and the prin­ci­ples that guide them prove sub­ject to con­stant change because of the irrec­on­cil­able ten­sion between indi­vid­u­al­ized deci­sion-mak­ing and the con­sti­tu­tion­al demand that we impose this ulti­mate sanc­tion on a con­sis­tent and reasoned basis. 

At the end of the day, per­haps the best argu­ment against cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment may be that it is an issue beyond the lim­it­ed capac­i­ty of gov­ern­ment to get things right. (New York Times, January 17, 2003)

See New Voices. Read the entire arti­cle.

In the U.S. Supreme Court: Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania
On January 14, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s bar against dou­ble jeop­ardy does not apply when a defen­dant is sen­tenced to death in a sec­ond tri­al after the first jury’s dead­lock result­ed in the defen­dant receiv­ing a life sen­tence. Earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that after a jury deter­mined that there was suf­fi­cient evi­dence to estab­lish legal enti­tle­ment to a life sen­tence, and the defen­dant was then sen­tenced to life, it was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to seek the death penal­ty on retri­al. In uphold­ing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court dis­tin­guished David A. Sattazahn’s case from the ear­li­er case by not­ing that the jury dead­locked in deter­min­ing Sattazahn’s sen­tence, and because of the dead­lock, the tri­al judge was bound by Pennsylvania law to sen­tence him to life in prison. Because nei­ther the jury’s dead­lock nor the judge’s entry of a life sen­tence con­sti­tut­ed an ​“acquit­tal” of the cap­i­tal sen­tence, the U.S. Supreme Court held (5 – 4), that jeop­ardy did not attach and that it was con­sti­tu­tion­al for Sattazahn to be sen­tenced to death at his sec­ond tri­al.
The dis­sent stat­ed that this rul­ing inter­fered with a defen­dan­t’s right to appeal. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, ​“The court’s hold­ing con­fronts defen­dants with a per­ilous choice. A defen­dant in Sattazahn’s posi­tion must relin­quish either her right to file a poten­tial­ly mer­i­to­ri­ous appeal, or her state-grant­ed enti­tle­ment to avoid the death penal­ty.” (New York Times, January 15, 2003 and Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, No. 01 – 7574). Read the opin­ion. See also, U.S. Supreme Court.

International Community Praises Governor Ryan’s Actions
Legal schol­ars and law­mak­ers from around the world have voiced their sup­port for Illinois Governor George Ryan’s recent deci­sion to clear the state’s death row. (See below) Walter Schwimmer, sec­re­tary gen­er­al of the Council of Europe, said, ​“On mak­ing this deci­sion, he proves a shared com­mit­ment and belief with the Council of Europe, that the death penal­ty has no place in a civ­i­lized soci­ety. I sin­cere­ly hope that this is a step for­ward in the abo­li­tion of the death penal­ty in the whole of the United States.” Ryan also received high praise and con­grat­u­la­tions from Mexican pres­i­dent Vincente Fox and Kenyan jus­tice min­is­ter Kiraitu Murungi. Kenya, where more than 1,000 peo­ple have been sen­tenced to death even though there have been no exe­cu­tions since 1984, is now work­ing to abol­ish the death penal­ty. ​“We think the fun­da­men­tal human right to life should be respect­ed, and no human being should have the author­i­ty to take the life of anoth­er. Capital pun­ish­ment is a bar­bar­ic pun­ish­ment,” said Murungi. (New York Times, January 14, 2002) See International Death Penalty.

NEW VOICES: Texas Baptist Commission Calls for Moratorium
The Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission has joined the call for a mora­to­ri­um on the death penal­ty. Declaring the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem ​“bro­ken” and ​“unfair,” the orga­ni­za­tion issued a cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment report exam­in­ing the death penal­ty from bib­li­cal, his­tor­i­cal and social jus­tice per­spec­tives. The report, which includes con­cerns about racial and socio-eco­nom­ic bias in how the death penal­ty is applied in Texas, con­cludes: ​“In the final analy­sis, bib­li­cal teach­ing does not sup­port cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment as it is prac­ticed in con­tem­po­rary soci­ety.” Moreover, the report stat­ed, ​“The prac­tice of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in our nation and state is an affront to bib­li­cal jus­tice, both in terms of its impact on the mar­gin­al­ized in soci­ety and in terms of sim­ple fair­ness.” (Business Wire, January 13, 2002) For more infor­ma­tion about the report, con­tact Becky Bridges or Kenneth Camp at the Baptist General Convention of Texas Communications Center (214 – 828-5229). See also, Additional Death Penalty and Religion Web Sites and New Voices.

$California Governor Seeks $220 Million Death Row Facility
As California law­mak­ers seek to over­come one of the largest bud­get deficits in the state’s his­to­ry, Governor Gray Davis has pro­posed build­ing a $220 mil­lion state of the art death row com­plex at San Quentin prison. More than 600 death row inmates are cur­rent­ly housed in facil­i­ties through­out the state. The new facil­i­ty would hold up to 1,000 death row inmates, leav­ing room for a sig­nif­i­cant growth in death row pop­u­la­tion. California aver­ages more than 20 new death sen­tences per year, and it has car­ried out 10 exe­cu­tions since it rein­stat­ed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in 1977. (The New York Times, January 14, 2003) According to a report in the Sacramento Bee, the death penal­ty costs California $90 mil­lion annu­al­ly beyond the ordi­nary costs of the jus­tice sys­tem, which indi­cates that the state has spent more than $1 bil­lion on the death penal­ty in the course of achiev­ing these 10 exe­cu­tions. (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988). See Costs.

NEW VOICES: President of Illinois Prosecutors’ Association Calls Death Penalty ​“Cruel Hoax”
John Piland, the chief pros­e­cu­tor in Champaign County and pres­i­dent of the Illinois State’s Attorneys Association, recent­ly called the state’s death penal­ty a ​“cru­el hoax.” Piland said that if a rel­a­tive of his was killed, he would ask the pros­e­cu­tor not to seek the death penal­ty. ” In Illinois we can say that we have [the death penal­ty], but in fact I’m not sure it’s fair to vic­tims’ fam­i­lies to sug­gest to them that it tru­ly exists,” Piland said. (New York Times, January 14, 2003). See New Voices.

NEW VOICES: Texas Legislation Challenges Fairness of State’s Death Penalty
Last term, Houston Representative Harold V. Dutton Jr. spon­sored leg­is­la­tion to impose a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions to pro­vide law­mak­ers with time to address the ques­tions of fair­ness and inno­cence that taint the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment laws. This year, Dutton has intro­duced a bill that would abol­ish Texas’s death penal­ty. In a recent Dallas Morning News com­men­tary, Dutton noted: 

I lis­tened to my con­stituents. In town hall meet­ings and in one-on-one con­ver­sa­tions, my con­stituents were trou­bled by Texas’ appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty. ​“We need to find out what is bro­ken in our sys­tem,” they would tell me.
…
Last ses­sion, oth­er leg­is­la­tors also intro­duced mora­to­ri­um pro­pos­als. At com­mit­tee hear­ings, there was over­whelm­ing sup­port for a mora­to­ri­um and the need for a study com­mis­sion.
…
If we can’t answer the first and sim­plest ques­tion cor­rect­ly, ​“Is this per­son guilty?,” how can we expect to answer the infi­nite­ly more dif­fi­cult ques­tion cor­rect­ly: ​“Is the death penal­ty the only appro­pri­ate pun­ish­ment for this indi­vid­ual?” (Dallas Morning News, January 13, 2003)

See, New Voices and Innocence.

Editorials Commend Illinois’s Governor, Call for Reconsideration of Death Penalty
Recent edi­to­ri­als appear­ing in The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post praised Illinois Governor George Ryan’s courage in address­ing his state’s flawed sys­tem of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment (see below). The papers called for states around the nation to fol­low Ryan’s lead and recon­sid­er death penal­ty poli­cies that have result­ed in wrong­ful con­vic­tions and unfair­ness in death sentencing. 

The New York Times noted:

We can only join in his (Governor Ryan’s) hope that this sweep­ing, and almost shock­ing, ges­ture leads the rest of the coun­try to recon­sid­er whether America wants to con­tin­ue to be in the busi­ness of state-sanc­tioned death.
…
The sat­is­fac­tion of ret­ri­bu­tion that the death penal­ty sup­plies can nev­er out­weigh the dan­ger of unfair or erro­neous appli­ca­tion as long as it exists. Virtually every coun­try on the plan­et has reject­ed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment as bar­bar­ic. Perhaps Governor Ryan, in the tor­tured end to his polit­i­cal career, can help lead the nation to a sim­i­lar con­clu­sion. (New York Times, January 13, 2003)

The Washington Post urged Maryland Governor-elect Robert Ehrlich to fol­low Ryan’s exam­ple and to take a less ​“cav­a­lier” atti­tude regard­ing his state’s trou­bling death penalty record: 

On this issue, he (Governor Ryan) leaves Illinois a bet­ter place — and a mod­el for the nation as to how a state can begin fac­ing the prob­lem of the death penal­ty.
That mod­el, alas, seems to hold lit­tle inter­est for Maryland Gov.-elect Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. It’s ear­ly, but Mr. Ehrlich thus far has demon­strat­ed a breath­tak­ing lack of con­cern for the evi­dent prob­lems with cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in Maryland. Even before the release of a University of Maryland study of geo­graph­i­cal and racial dis­par­i­ties in cap­i­tal pun­ish­men­t’s appli­ca­tion, he pledged to lift the cur­rent mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions no mat­ter what the study showed.
…
Such a cav­a­lier atti­tude is inap­pro­pri­ate for a man who will wield pow­er over life and death. If the new gov­er­nor con­tin­ues to ignore the study results, he will be say­ing that it does­n’t trou­ble him that Maryland pros­e­cu­tors effec­tive­ly val­ue white lives more high­ly than black lives. Pretending this unfair­ness does­n’t exist won’t make it dis­ap­pear. Mr. Ehrlich may be too busy plan­ning his inau­gu­ra­tion, but he should take time out to learn from the out­go­ing gov­er­nor a few states west. (Washington Post, January 12, 2003)

USA Today said Ryan’s deci­sion gives law­mak­ers an oppor­tu­ni­ty to fix Illinois’s flawed, biased and cost­ly death penalty system: 

Ryan’s act of con­science pro­vides only a brief win­dow. State pros­e­cu­tors will still seek the death penal­ty. Some will win it But in this moment of clear air, the ill wis­dom of the death penal­ty — the harm it inflicts on jus­tice, soci­ety and sur­vivors — is illu­mi­nat­ed. This is espe­cial­ly so in con­trast with the prac­ti­cal alter­na­tive: life with­out the parole, which offers the same cer­tain­ty of crim­i­nal pun­ish­ment and ben­e­fit to pub­lic safe­ty at a frac­tion of the cost, care, risk and delay.
…
The prac­ti­cal solu­tion is Ryan’s. End the death penal­ty. Get on with life. (USA Today, January 13, 2003)

See Innocence and Clemency.

Systemic Problems Lead Illinois Governor to Commute All Death Sentences
Gov. George Ryan has grant­ed clemen­cy to all of the remain­ing 156 death row inmates in Illinois as a direct result of the flawed process that led to these sen­tences. He also grant­ed clemen­cy to 11 inmates who were await­ing sen­tenc­ing or resen­tenc­ing. In light of this his­toric action, the state must now decide if it wants to begin the death penal­ty process all over again. The gov­er­nor’s deci­sion is in keep­ing with the tra­di­tion­al use of this exec­u­tive pow­er to rem­e­dy great injus­tices. Ryan’s announce­ment, made dur­ing a speech at Northwestern University Law School, comes one day after he erased the con­vic­tions of four death row inmates. Today’s clemen­cies will not result in the release of the inmates since many still face life in prison. (See below) Read Governor Ryan’s Remarks. See DPIC’s Press Release. See also, Clemency.

Illinois Governor Pardons Four Death Row Inmates
Illinois Governor George Ryan today grant­ed four par­dons to death row inmates whose con­vic­tions he said are part of the state’s failed jus­tice sys­tem and ​“shame­ful score­card” of wrong­ful con­vic­tions. Pardoned today were Aaron Patterson, Madison Hobley, Leroy Orange, and Stanley Howard. Action on these four cas­es affects the under­ly­ing con­vic­tions and should be dis­tin­guished from com­mu­ta­tions of death sen­tences, which may still occur for a larg­er num­ber of inmates. The par­dons were the result of lengthy inves­ti­ga­tions reveal­ing egre­gious abuse of the defen­dants’ rights, includ­ing tor­ture dur­ing inter­ro­ga­tion. The deci­sion was announced dur­ing Ryan’s speech at the DePaul University College of Law. It is like­ly that Ryan will announce deci­sions on death sen­tences result­ing from his on-going review of clemen­cy peti­tions filed on behalf of every death row inmate in the state in a speech sched­uled for Saturday. See DPIC’s Press Release. See also, Innocence.

Mexico Challenges U.S. Death Sentences of Its Citizens, Seeks Commutations
Mexico has filed a com­plaint against the United States in the International Court of Justice charg­ing that American offi­cials have vio­lat­ed the rights of all 54 Mexicans on death row in the U.S. and ask­ing that their sen­tences be com­mut­ed to life in prison. Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo, the Foreign Ministry attor­ney who filed the case with the U.N. court in The Hague, claims that U.S. author­i­ties fre­quent­ly pro­vide Mexican nation­als fac­ing cap­i­tal charges with pub­lic defend­ers who ​“speak lit­tle or no Spanish and have no expe­ri­ence in death penal­ty cas­es.” Robledo asserts that the U.S. has vio­lat­ed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which guar­an­tees access to con­sular assis­tance when for­eign nation­als are accused of a crime, and as a result Mexican mis­sions are denied the oppor­tu­ni­ty to pro­vide Spanish-speak­ing lawyers who have more expe­ri­ence with cap­i­tal cas­es. (Washington Post, January 10, 2003) See Foreign Nationals and International Death Penalty.

NEW VOICES: Virginia Governor Seeks End to 21-Day Rule, Compliance on Execution of the Mentally Retarded
In his sec­ond State of the Commonwealth address deliv­ered before Virginia’s leg­is­la­ture on January 8, Gov. Mark Warner called on the state’s law­mak­ers to end Virginia’s 21-day rule that bars the intro­duc­tion of new evi­dence more than three weeks after sen­tenc­ing. He also urged the state to pass leg­is­la­tion to imple­ment the Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Atkins v. Virginia that bans the exe­cu­tion of the men­tal­ly retard­ed. Warner stated: 

Our state con­tin­ues to cling to the out­dat­ed ​“21-day rule” that can actu­al­ly pre­vent evi­dence of inno­cence from com­ing to light. No oth­er state has such a restric­tive rule .… I believe the rule should be changed.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that exe­cut­ing per­sons who are men­tal­ly retard­ed is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Once again, I urge you to send me leg­is­la­tion to com­ply with the court’s deci­sion and pro­hib­it the exe­cu­tion of men­tal­ly retard­ed per­sons in Virginia. (Washington Post, January 9, 2003).

See Innocence and Mental Retardation. See also, New Voices.

Washington Post Urges Maryland to Continue Moratorium
In an edi­to­r­i­al respond­ing to Maryland’s death penal­ty study that revealed racial and geo­graph­ic bias in how the state applies cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, the Washington Post urged Governor-elect Robert Ehrlich to recon­sid­er plans to aban­don the state’s mora­to­ri­um on executions: 

Maryland Gov.-elect Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. promised to lift his state’s mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions regard­less of what schol­ars at the University of Maryland found con­cern­ing the influ­ence of race and geog­ra­phy on the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty. He should have wait­ed, and maybe now he will recon­sid­er. For the report, request­ed by Gov. Parris N. Glendening — who froze exe­cu­tions while the study was under­way — makes clear that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is applied in a fash­ion that sends a deeply cor­ro­sive mes­sage: Maryland cares more — a great deal more — about the deaths of white peo­ple, par­tic­u­lar­ly when killed by black peo­ple, than it does about the deaths of blacks. If Mr. Ehrlich car­ries out his promise, he will be say­ing, in effect, that this does­n’t both­er him.
…
Mr. Ehrlich has said that the study won’t affect his deci­sion, because he means to review death sen­tences rig­or­ous­ly on a case-by-case basis. But that miss­es the point. These data demon­strate that a giv­en case can be rock sol­id and still be no more wor­thy of death than one in which cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment was nev­er even sought. It is pos­si­ble, in oth­er words, for the state to be both rig­or­ous and dis­crim­i­na­to­ry. Is this real­ly the Maryland that Mr. Ehrlich wants? (Washington Post, January 8, 2003)

Read the com­plete edi­to­r­i­al. See the University of Maryland Study.

Maryland Study Finds that Race and Geography Play Key Roles in Death Penalty
According to the find­ings of a Governor-com­mis­sioned death penal­ty study con­duct­ed by researchers at the University of Maryland, the state’s death penal­ty sys­tem is taint­ed with racial bias, and geog­ra­phy plays a sig­nif­i­cant role in who faces a cap­i­tal con­vic­tion. The study, one of the nation’s most com­pre­hen­sive offi­cial reviews on race and the death penal­ty, con­clud­ed that defen­dants are much more like­ly to be sen­tenced to death if they have killed a white per­son. See DPIC’s Press Release. For more infor­ma­tion about the study, see the Executive Summary and Complete Study (Released on January 7, 2003). 

NEW RESOURCE: The Leviathan’s Choice: Capital Punishment in the Twenty-First Century
​“The Leviathan’s Choice: Capital Punishment in the Twenty-First Century” is a col­lec­tion of essays that explores cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment from philo­soph­i­cal, the­o­log­i­cal, social sci­ence, and legal view­points. The book fea­tures argu­ments both for and against cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment and was edit­ed by J. Michael Martinez, William Richardson, and D. Brandon Hornsby. (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002). See also Studies, Books, and Law Reviews.

Mexican Embassy Raises Questions of Innocence, Fairness in Fierro Case
In 1980, Mexican nation­al Cesar Roberto Fierro was sent to death row in Texas for the mur­der of an El Paso cab dri­ver. Since then, a steady stream of rev­e­la­tions — includ­ing a con­fes­sion induced through threats to his fam­i­ly, a lack of phys­i­cal evi­dence, and oth­er alle­ga­tions of police mis­con­duct — has led Mexican Embassy offi­cials to request a clos­er exam­i­na­tion of his case and his pos­si­ble inno­cence. See DPIC’s Web page about this case. See also, Innocence.

NEW RESOURCE: Death Penalty ​“In a Nutshell”
The ​“In a Nutshell” series of law ref­er­ence books has added a death penal­ty edi­tion by cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment expert and pro­fes­sor Victor Streib. The book pro­vides a brief his­to­ry of the death penal­ty debate in the United States and reviews the con­sti­tu­tion­al issues that are most often addressed in death penal­ty cas­es. In addi­tion to the dif­fer­ent stages and unique aspects of a cap­i­tal tri­al, Streib uses the resource to explain tri­al and post-tri­al pro­ce­dures, as well as issues such as com­pe­tent coun­sel, race and gen­der bias, inno­cence, and inter­na­tion­al death penal­ty law. (West Group, 2002). See also Studies, Books, and Law Reviews.

Editorials Fuel Questions of Fairness, Support Moratoriums

Two recent edi­to­ri­als addressed the ques­tions of accu­ra­cy and fair­ness that con­tin­ue to shape the nation’s death penal­ty debate. The Baltimore Sun urged Governor-elect Robert Ehrlich to aban­don his plan to lift Maryland’s mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions when he takes office: 

Governor Glendening called a halt to exe­cu­tions this spring, say­ing he want­ed to wait until the (Maryland) race study was com­plet­ed before anoth­er inmate was killed. But he could have called the mora­to­ri­um based on any num­ber of appar­ent prob­lems with Maryland’s cap­i­tal law. That’s why Gov.-elect Robert Ehrlich Jr. ought to hold off on his pledge to sum­mar­i­ly lift the mora­to­ri­um when he takes over next month. There are too many lin­ger­ing ques­tions, too many pos­si­bil­i­ties for error, to resume exe­cu­tions.
…
The truth is that the sys­tem has com­mit­ted glar­ing errors in recent years, and it could be only a mat­ter of time before an error results in an unjust exe­cu­tion. That would need­less­ly stain Mr. Ehrlich’s record.
He has been a thought­ful, not reck­less, advo­cate of the death penal­ty. He ought to build on that record by insist­ing that Maryland’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem be fixed before it is allowed to start up again. (Baltimore Sun, December 26, 2002)

The Kansas City Star sup­port­ed Senator Ed Quick’s pro­posed bill to abol­ish Missouri’s death penal­ty in order to pro­tect against the exe­cu­tion of an innocent person: 

To avoid the pos­si­bil­i­ty of Missouri exe­cut­ing inno­cent peo­ple, the next ses­sion of the General Assembly should abol­ish the death penal­ty.
Under Senate Bill 0169, pre­filed by Sen. Ed Quick, peo­ple con­vict­ed of first- degree mur­der would be pun­ished with life in prison with­out parole, except by an act of the gov­er­nor. This would be a wise way to avoid the pos­si­bil­i­ty of the state exe­cut­ing inno­cence peo­ple.
…
Quick’s bill should lead to a care­ful study and debate of all aspects of the death penal­ty. While it’s pend­ing, Gov. Bob Holden would do well to fol­low the Illinois lead and declare a mora­to­ri­um on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. (Kansas City Star, December 26, 2002)

See also Innocence and Recent Legislative Activity.

Legal Scholars Send Letter to Ryan
More than 425 law pro­fes­sors from across the nation have signed an open let­ter to Illinois Governor George Ryan encour­ag­ing him to con­sid­er grant­i­ng each of the clemen­cy requests cur­rent­ly under his review. Earlier this year, fol­low­ing the com­ple­tion of the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment’s exam­i­na­tion of the state’s death penal­ty, clemen­cy peti­tions were filed on behalf of more than 150 death row inmates. The Commission’s review exam­ined flaws with­in the state’s death penal­ty sys­tem and result­ed in a lengthy list of reform rec­om­men­da­tions that aim to ensure improved fair­ness and accu­ra­cy. In today’s let­ter to Governor Ryan, the law pro­fes­sors not­ed, ​“The clemen­cy pow­er tra­di­tion­al­ly has been used not only to cor­rect injus­tices in indi­vid­ual cas­es, but also as a response to prob­lems in the sys­temic appli­ca­tion of the law. It can pro­mote heal­ing after issues of great divi­sive­ness have been resolved.” Ryan is expect­ed to act on the peti­tions before leav­ing office in January. (Chicago Tribune, December 30, 2002). See also Clemency and Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment.

False Confessions Investigation
A recent inves­ti­ga­tion by The Miami Herald found that 38 false or ques­tion­able con­fes­sions have been dis­cred­it­ed in just one Florida coun­ty since 1990. The con­fes­sions were either thrown out by Broward County courts, reject­ed by juries, or aban­doned by police or pros­e­cu­tors. The Herald’s study found exam­ples of ille­gal inter­ro­ga­tion, coer­cive ques­tion­ing, and flawed fact-check­ing. At least six con­fessed ​“killers” who were charged with mur­der were lat­er deter­mined to be inno­cent. Among the false con­fes­sions list­ed was that of Frank Lee Smith who spent 14 years on Florida’s death row. DNA evi­dence even­tu­al­ly cleared him of the charges, but he died of can­cer six months before his exon­er­a­tion. (Miami Herald, Dec. 22, 2002). See also Innocence.

NEW RESOURCE: Capital Punishment 2001
Earlier in December, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released its annu­al report on the death penal­ty with sta­tis­tics from the pre­vi­ous year. The report con­tained a num­ber of interesting findings:

• The num­ber of peo­ple sen­tenced to death in 2001 was 155, the small­est num­ber since 1979, and an almost 50% drop from the aver­age num­ber of death sen­tences in 1994 – 99.
• Between 1973 and 2001, Texas sen­tenced the most peo­ple to death (889), fol­lowed by Florida (863) and California (779).
• The num­ber of peo­ple under sen­tence of death declined in 2001, the first decrease in 25 years.
• The time between sen­tenc­ing and exe­cu­tion for those exe­cut­ed in 2001 was 11 years and 10 months, slight­ly longer than for those exe­cut­ed in 2000. Overall, the aver­age time between sen­tenc­ing and exe­cu­tion for those exe­cut­ed between 1977 and 2001 was 10 years and 3 months.

(BJS, Capital Punishment 2001 (pub­lished 2002)). See also DPIC’s 2002 Year End Report for sta­tis­tics on 2002.

NEW RESOURCE: Law Review Examines the Policy and Politics of the Death Penalty
The Spring 2002 Oregon Law Review titled ​“The Law and Politics of the Death Penalty: Abolition, Moratorium, or Reform?” fea­tures arti­cles writ­ten to com­ple­ment an Oregon sym­po­sium on the death penal­ty. The resource con­tains arti­cles by cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment experts from around the coun­try, and high­lights issues such as the future of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in the U.S., the pow­er of clemen­cy, and inter­na­tion­al poli­cies regard­ing the death penal­ty. It also exam­ines the issues of race, gen­der, and geo­graph­ic dis­par­i­ties con­cern­ing the death penal­ty. (81 Oregon Law Review 1 (2002)). See Studies, Books and Law Reviews.

NEW VOICES: New York DA Calls Death Penalty ​“A Hollow Victory”
Queens District Attorney Richard Brown recent­ly called the death penal­ty a hol­low vic­to­ry because it offers vic­tims’ fam­i­lies ​“a false hope of clo­sure.” Brown said that the use of the death penal­ty is regret­table because the long and expen­sive appeals process caus­es vic­tims’ fam­i­ly mem­bers to relive the crime that took their loved one. He not­ed that fam­i­lies ​“hang on” to a false belief that a cap­i­tal con­vic­tion will ease their pain. (Queens Chronicle, December 20, 2002) See New Voices.

Innocence I: Judge Overturns Central Park Jogger Convictions
New York State Supreme Court Justice Charles Tejada vacat­ed the con­vic­tions of five men who were wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed of the 1989 Central Park jog­ger attack after the Manhattan District Attorney rec­om­mend­ed drop­ping charges. (See below) The men, ages 14 – 16 at the time of the crime, spent years in jail for the crime before DNA evi­dence in the case con­firmed that the rape was com­mit­ted by anoth­er man. (Associated Press, December 19, 2002) See, Innocence.

Innocence II: FBI Says State’s Top Scientist Misidentified Evidence in Wrongful Conviction Case
A recent­ly released FBI report dis­closed that Arnold Melnikoff, a foren­sic sci­en­tist who served as the direc­tor of Montana’s state crime lab­o­ra­to­ry for near­ly two decades, misiden­ti­fied crit­i­cal hair evi­dence in the state’s (non-death penal­ty) case against Jimmy Ray Bromgard. The report was issued after DNA test­ing cleared Bromgard, who had spent 15 years in jail for the crime. ​“This con­ceiv­ably will be the biggest crime lab scan­dal in the coun­try,” said Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardoza School of Law in New York City. ​“He was the top guy in the state.” For the past 13 years, Melnikoff has also worked as a foren­sic sci­en­tist for the Washington State Police. Authorities in both Washington and Montana are review­ing cas­es in which he pro­vid­ed foren­sic analy­sis. (New York Times, December 19, 2002) See, Innocence.

Innocence III: Ryan Pardons Three Wrongfully Convicted Men
During a speech before the University of Illinois College of Law, Illinois Governor George Ryan announced the par­don of three men who had been wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed of mur­der and were lat­er exon­er­at­ed. Ryan grant­ed the par­dons to two of the state’s 13 death row exonerees, Rolando Cruz and Gary Gauger, and to Steven Linscott. Cruz and Gauger were among the cas­es of inno­cence that prompt­ed Ryan to declare a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions in the state. Ryan is cur­rent­ly con­sid­er­ing clemen­cy requests filed on behalf of more than 150 death row inmates in the state, and he is expect­ed to act on the requests before leav­ing office in January. (Associated Press, December 19, 2002). See, Innocence and Clemency.

DPIC’s 2002 Year End Report Traces Year of Change in Capital Punishment
The Death Penalty Information Center has released its 2002 Year End Report. According to the report, the year 2002 saw fur­ther iso­la­tion in the use of the death penal­ty, the exon­er­a­tion of the nation’s 100^th death row inmate, key Supreme Court deci­sions restrict­ing cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, and a sec­ond state’s imple­men­ta­tion of a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions. In addi­tion, the report notes that con­tin­ued con­cerns about the fair­ness and accu­ra­cy of the cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem have led gov­er­nors, courts, and oth­er offi­cials to insti­tute con­crete reforms in 2002. See 2002 Year End Report and DPIC’s Press Release.

• A moth­er vis­its her son on Texas’s Death Row (see books )
• c. Ken Light

Other infor­ma­tion:

“Toward Greater Awareness: The American Bar Association Call for a Moratorium on Executions Gains Ground ” — A new report by the ABA’s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities sum­ma­rizes the leg­isla­tive, judi­cial, and pub­lic pol­i­cy devel­op­ments that have occurred from January 2000 to July 2001.

​“Death with­out Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States” — a report by the ABA’s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities that pro­vides pro­to­cols for state com­mis­sions, leg­is­la­tures and oth­ers con­sid­er­ing the fair­ness of the death penalty.

​“Mandatory Justice: Eighteen Reforms to the Death Penalty” — a report by the Constitution Project’s Death Penalty Initiative, a bipar­ti­san com­mit­tee of death penal­ty sup­port­ers and oppo­nents, detail­ing spe­cif­ic rec­om­men­da­tions that relate to var­i­ous aspects of capital punishment.

​“The Federal Death Penalty System: A Statistical Survey 1988 – 2000” by the Justice Department, released on September 12, 2000, found numer­ous racial and geographic disparities.

DPIC’s Summary of the Justice Department study , ​“The Federal Death Penalty System: A Statistical Survey 1988 – 2000,” find­ing numer­ous racial and geographic disparities. 

” The Federal Death Penalty System: Supplementary Data, Analysis and Revised Protocols for Capital Case Review ” A fol­low-up by the Justice Department, released in June 2001.

“A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases ” — The Columbia Law School study by Professor James S. Liebman that found seri­ous mis­takes were made in 2/​3 of all cap­i­tal cas­es (June, 2000). DPIC’s Summary of the Columbia University study , ​“A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases,” with links to fre­quent­ly asked ques­tions about the study and Professor Liebman’s lat­est arti­cle on the sub­ject. ​“A Broken System, Part II: Why There is So Much Error in Capital Cases, and What Can be Done About It ” — This fol­low up to the June 2000 report explains the fac­tors that lead to errors in death penal­ty cas­es (February 2002). Questions and Answers regard­ing ​“A Broken System, Part II”

PollingReport​.com. An Internet col­lec­tion of recent death penal­ty poll results

DPIC Inside links New: Recent changes or pro­posed changes to state and fed­er­al death penal­ty law
New: ​“Press Room.”
New: Educational Curriculum on the Death Penalty .
​“Death Row USA” — NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund’s list of all death row inmates
DPIC’s Thurgood Marshall Journalism Awards
Recent Articles on the Death Penalty
New Voices
Recent Poll Findings
DPIC’s Summary of ​“Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted,” by DNA experts Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and colum­nist Jim Dwyer.
DPIC’s 2002 Year End Report