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

Law Commons™

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

Death penalty

Selected Works

Robert M. Sanger

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Duties Of Capital Trial Counsel Under The California “Death Penalty Reform And Savings Act Of 2016”, Robert M. Sanger Apr 2017

Duties Of Capital Trial Counsel Under The California “Death Penalty Reform And Savings Act Of 2016”, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

Every trial lawyer who is handling a capital case in California or who has handled a capital case for which the decision of the California Supreme Court is not final on a pending habeas corpus petition, needs to be aware of certain specific duties and strategies required by The Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016,1 Proposition 66, enacted by the voters2 on November 8, 2016.3 The Act imposes new duties on capital trial counsel following a judgment of death, will require more prompt discharge of other duties and may even present an opportunity. While the article focuses on …

Go to article

Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient Test Scores And The Impropriety Of “Ethnic (Or Socio-Economic) Adjustment” In Atkins Cases, Robert Sanger Jan 2015

Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient Test Scores And The Impropriety Of “Ethnic (Or Socio-Economic) Adjustment” In Atkins Cases, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

After attending this presentation, attendees will gain new information regarding developments in epigenetics which relate to the validity of Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) scores in determining intellectual disability for the purpose of eligibility of a criminal defendant to be executed if otherwise subject to the death penalty. (Complete Abstract at page 727 of the proceedings: http://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/2015/2015Proceedings.pdf )

Go to article

Iq, Intelligence Testing, Ethnic Adjustments And Atkins, Robert M. Sanger Dec 2014

Iq, Intelligence Testing, Ethnic Adjustments And Atkins, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

In Atkins v. Virginia the U.S. Supreme Court declared that executing the intellectually disabled violated the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In Atkins, the Court relied heavily on medical standards, which indicated that individuals with an IQ of approximately or below seventy and who met the other criteria for intellectual disability were ineligible for the death penalty. Twelve years later, in Hall v. Florida, the Court evaluated a Florida statute that created a bright line rule, making anyone whose IQ was above seventy eligible for execution, regardless of other factors suggesting the defendant was, despite …

Go to article