Law Commons^™

Death Penalty Exceptionalism And Administrative Law, Corinna Lain

Law Faculty Publications

"In the world of capital punishment, the oft-repeated refrain “death is different” stands for the notion that when the state exercises its most awesome power—the power to take human life—every procedural protection should be provided. Every safeguard should be met. Granted, doing so makes the death penalty cumbersome. And granted, it slows what Justice Blackmun famously called “the machinery of death.” But when the stakes are literally life and death, the idea is that we ought to make sure that whatever the state does, it does right.

Scholars have lamented the way that this idea of death penalty exceptionalism has …

Three Observations About The Worst Of The Worst, Virginia-Style, Corinna Lain

Law Faculty Publications

Much could be said about Virginia’s historic decision to repeal the death penalty, and Professor Klein’s essay provides a wonderful starting point for any number of important discussions. We could talk about how the decision came to be. Or why the move is so momentous. Or what considerations were particularly important in the decision‑making process. Or where we should go from here. But in this brief comment, I’ll be focusing not on the how, or the why, or the what, or the where, but rather on the who. Who are condemned inmates, both generally and Virginia‑style?

Bucklew V. Precythe : Brief Of Arizona Voice For Crime Victims, Inc., And Melissa Sanders As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Paul Cassell, Allyson N. Ho, Daniel Nowicki, Daniel Chen

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This amicus brief in Bucklew v. Precythe discusses how undue delay in capital cases can harm crime victims’ families. After reviewing the facts of the cases, the brief draws on the available scholarship to show how extended delays in criminal cases – and particularly death penalty cases – can compound the harms and exacerbate the trauma that victims’ families suffer. The brief concludes that the important interests of victims should be vindicated by affirming the judgment reached below.

Johnson V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 73 (Oct. 5, 2017) (En Banc), Ebeth Rocio Palafox

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When the Court reverses a death sentence on direct appeal and remands for a new penalty hearing, there is no longer a final judgment that triggers the one-year period set forth in NRS 34.726(1) for filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The Demographic Dilemma In Death Qualification Of Capital Jurors, J. Thomas Sullivan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Deontology, Political Morality, And The State Symposium: Political Theory And Criminal Punishment, Youngjae Lee

Faculty Scholarship

Sometimes the government makes a policy choice, and, as a result, innocent persons die. How should we morally assess such deaths? For instance, is the government’s choice of the reasonable doubt standard or its decision to restrict the death penalty to certain narrow categories responsible for deaths of innocents? If so, does the deontological norm against harming people dictate that the government loosen the evidentiary standard for conviction or widen the availability of capital punishment? This Article argues that the traditional distinctions between intending and foreseeing harm and between causing harm and allowing harm to occur are insufficient to absolve …

Science, Public Bioethics, And The Problem Of Integration, O. Carter Snead

Journal Articles

Public bioethics — the governance of science, medicine, and biotechnology in the name of ethical goods — is an emerging area of American law. The field uniquely combines scientific knowledge, moral reasoning, and prudential judgments about democratic decision making. It has captured the attention of officials in every branch of government, as well as the American public itself. Public questions (such as those relating to the law of abortion, the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and the regulation of end-of-life decision making) continue to roil the public square.

This Article examines the question of how scientific methods and …

The Precarious Situation Of Human Rights In The United States In Normal Times And After September 11, 2001 (La Situación Precaria De Los Derechos Humanos En Estados Unidos En Tiempos Normales Y Después Del 11 De Septiembre De 2001) (Spanish), Stephen C. Thaman

All Faculty Scholarship

The paper criticizes the impact of U. S. American criminal law and procedure on the human rights of U. S. citizens in normal times and the changes that have occurred since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It deals with racial profiling, the death penalty, Draconian prison sentences in normal times, and the use of unlimited detention, torture and expanded powers of wiretapping and evidence gathering since the attacks of 9-11.

Note: downloadable document is in Spanish

Retroactive Application Of "New Rules" And The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act, A. Christopher Bryant

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

For three decades, the application of United States Supreme Court criminal procedure decisions has confused the Court's habeas corpus jurisprudence. In 1999, the Court's decision in Williams v. Taylor might have resolved the ambiguous relationship between the pre-1996 habeas corpus retroactivity decisions - the most significant of which was Teague v. Lane - and the habeas corpus reform provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Unfortunately, the Williams decision has only engendered further confusion.

Two decades before Teague, the second Justice Harlan proposed an approach to retroactivity questions, arguing that a decision that announced …

"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 embracing …

The Capital Defendant's Right To Make A Personal Plea For Mercy: Common Law Allocution And Constitutional Mitigation, J. Thomas Sullivan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

When Death Is The Issue: Uses Of Pathological Testimony And Autopsy Reports At Trial, J. Thomas Sullivan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Bell V. Ohio, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.