Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Law

Lonchar V. Thomas 116 S. Ct. 1293 (1996) United States Supreme Court Sep 1996

Lonchar V. Thomas 116 S. Ct. 1293 (1996) United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.


The Incredible Shrinking Writ: Habeas Corpus Under The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, Jeanne-Marie S. Raymond Sep 1996

The Incredible Shrinking Writ: Habeas Corpus Under The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, Jeanne-Marie S. Raymond

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.


"As The Gentle Rain From Heaven": Mercy In Capital Sentencing, Stephen P. Garvey Jul 1996

"As The Gentle Rain From Heaven": Mercy In Capital Sentencing, Stephen P. Garvey

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Our constitutional law of capital sentencing does not understand Shakespeare's "gentle rain from heaven." Mercy confuses and befuddles it. The jury that sentenced Albert Brown to death was instructed that "'mere ... sympathy"' should not play on its judgment. Brown claimed this instruction violated his Eighth Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Some five years later, Justice Scalia dissented when the Court reversed Derrick Morgan's death sentence. According to Justice Scalia, the Court had held that no "merciless" juror could sit in judgment of a capital defendant. The Constitution, he thought, demanded no such thing. These dissents, one ...


The Defunding Of The Post Conviction Defense Organizations As A Denial Of The Right To Counsel, Roscoe C. Howard Jr. Apr 1996

The Defunding Of The Post Conviction Defense Organizations As A Denial Of The Right To Counsel, Roscoe C. Howard Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.


Jury Responsibility In Capital Sentencing: An Empirical Study, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen P. Garvey, Martin T. Wells Apr 1996

Jury Responsibility In Capital Sentencing: An Empirical Study, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen P. Garvey, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The law allows executioners to deny responsibility for what they have done by making it possible for them to believe they have not done it. The law treats members of capital sentencing juries quite differently. It seeks to ensure that they feel responsible for sentencing a defendant to death. This differential treatment rests on a presumed link between a capital sentencer's willingness to accept responsibility for the sentence she imposes and the accuracy and reliability of that sentence. Using interviews of 153 jurors who sat in South Carolina capital cases, this article examines empirically whether capital sentencing jurors assume ...


The Risks Of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions Are Common In Capital Cases (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross Jan 1996

The Risks Of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions Are Common In Capital Cases (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross

Articles

As the Supreme Court has said, time and again, death is different: It is "different in kind from any other punishment imposed under our system of criminal justice;"1 it "differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year sentence differs from one of only a year or two;"' 2 and so forth. Traditionally, this observation has justified special procedural protections for capital defendants. Justice Harlan put it nicely nearly forty years ago: "I do not concede that whatever process is 'due' an offender faced with a fine or a prison sentence necessarily satisfies the requirements of the Constitution in a ...


Reply To Daniel Polsby (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross Jan 1996

Reply To Daniel Polsby (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross

Articles

I'd like to offer a few words in response to Professor Polsby's articulate, forceful and amusing essay in favor of capital punishment.


An Introduction To Federal Habeas Corpus Practice And Procedure, John H. Blume, David P. Voisin Jan 1996

An Introduction To Federal Habeas Corpus Practice And Procedure, John H. Blume, David P. Voisin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

For many prisoners, federal habeas corpus stands as the last opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of their convictions or sentences. Simply navigating through the procedural maze of habeas practice, however, is a formidable task for inmates proceeding pro se and prisoners represented by counsel. Tragically, those who have had a fundamentally unfair trial, and even those who are innocent, may easily stumble. Since 1867, habeas corpus, or the Great Writ, has been available to state prisoners "in all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or ...