Digital Commons Network^™

Capital Punishment: Corporate Criminal Liability For Gross Violations Of Human Rights, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

These remarks were presented on February 24, 2001, in a panel concluding a conference entitled "Holding Multinational Corporations Responsible Under International Law" at Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, California.

Innocence Protection Act: Death Penalty Reform On The Horizon, Ronald Weich

All Faculty Scholarship

The criminal justice pendulum may be swinging back in the direction of fairness. The Innocence Protection Act of 2001, introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives earlier this year, promises meaningful reforms in the administration of capital punishment in the United States.

Unlike previous slabs at reform, the Innocence Protection Act (lPA) has a real chance to become law because it commands unusually broad bipartisan support. The Senate bill (S. 486) is sponsored by Democrat Pat Leahy of Vermont and Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon. The House bill (H.R. 912) is sponsored by Democrat Bill Delahunt of …

No One Can Serve Two Masters: Arguments Against Private Prosecutors, Matthew S. Nichols

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Right To Kill In Cold Blood: Does The Death Penalty Violate Human Rights, Alan Ryan

Cleveland State Law Review

The essence of the argument is this: all punishment must be inflicted in cold blood; whatever damage we do to others not in cold blood is not punishment but self-defense or revenge; what we have a right to inflict in cold blood is a question of the rules of just social cooperation and especially the justice of the sanctions required to sustain those rules; it is here argued that the fundamental principle is that we may inflict whatever punishment is necessary to deter wrongdoing and not disproportionate to the offence; I do not dismiss 'pure' retribution as a goal of …

Capital Punishment: A Selected Bibliography, Pat Newcombe

Media Presence

No abstract provided.

Earl Washington's Ordeal, Eric M. Freedman

Hofstra Law Review

By way of preface to this Symposium, I offer an account of the ordeal of Earl Washington, who-having come within days of execution-was released from prison on February 12, 2001, after DNA evidence of his innocence finally proved conclusive to the Virginia authorities. I do so for two reasons.

First, I believe, both as a member of his legal team and a scholar, that history deserves an accurate account of the events. Second, more broadly, I believe that the case exemplifies many of the phenomena that contribute to the injustice of the death penalty in America today, and that its …

Preventing The Execution Of The Innocent: Testimony Before The House Judiciary Committee, Peter Neufeld

Hofstra Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preventing The Execution Of The Innocent: Testimony Before The Senate Judiciary Committee, Barry C. Scheck

Hofstra Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Innocence Protection Act Of 2001, Senator Patrick Leahy

Hofstra Law Review

No abstract provided.

Congressional Power To Require Dna Testing, Larry Yackle

Hofstra Law Review

No abstract provided.

Errors And Ethics: Dilemmas In Death, Penny J. White

Hofstra Law Review

No abstract provided.

Capital Punishment: A Selected Bibliography, Pat Newcombe

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Future Dangerousness In Capital Cases: Always "At Issue", John H. Blume, Stephen P. Garvey, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Under Simmons v. South Carolina, a capital defendant who, if not sentenced to death, will remain in prison with no chance of parole is constitutionally entitled to an instruction informing the jury of the fact, but only if the prosecution engages in conduct that places the defendant's future dangerousness "at issue." Based on data collected from interviews with South Carolina capital jurors, Professors Blume, Garvey and Johnson argue that future dangerousness is on the minds of most capital jurors, and is thus "at issue" in virtually all capital trials, regardless of the prosecution's conduct. Accordingly, the authors argue that …

Informing Capital Juries About Parole: The Effect On Life Or Death Decisions, C. Lindsey Morrill

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Race, Peremptories, And Capital Jury Deliberations, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

In Lonnie Weeks's capital murder trial in Virginia in 1993, the jury was instructed: If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, either of the two alternative aggravating factors], and as to that alternative you are unanimous, then you may fix the punishment of the defendant at death or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, then you shall fix the punishment of the defendant at life imprisonment ... This instruction is plainly ambiguous, at least to a lay audience. Does it mean that if the …

Still Unfair, Still Arbitrary -- But Do We Care?, Samuel R. Gross

Other Publications

Keyword Address to the Twenty-Third Annual Law Review Symposium The Ultimate Pentalty: A Multifarious Look at Capital Punishment

The Constitutional Failure Of The Strickland Standard In Capital Cases Under The Eighth Amendment, Amy R. Murphy

Law and Contemporary Problems

Criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, but the Supreme Court's decision in "Strickland" has given appellate courts overly broad discretion to determine exactly what constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Murphy reviews the right to counsel and discusses the crucial role of counsel in capital cases throughout the trial and appellate processes.

Opining On Death: Witness Sentence Recommendations In Capital Trials, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

Despite the Supreme Court's command that capital prosecutions be free of undue arbitrary and capricious influences, the trials themselves are becoming increasingly emotional and personalized. This Article addresses a key outgrowth of this evolution: the increasingly common practice of witnesses opining on whether a defendant should be put to death, despite the Court's apparent prohibition of such testimony. The Article addresses why this practice is likely to continue, and advances several reasons why the Supreme Court should impose an unequivocal bar on sentence opinion, testimony in capital trials.

Fish not, with this melancholy bait,
For this fool gudgeon, this opinion. …

The Role Of Forgiveness In Capital Murder Cases, Paige Mcthenia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Improving Process In Virginia Capital Cases, Robert H. Robinson, Jr.

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Option Not Taken: A Progressive Report On Chapter 154 Of The Anti-Terrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act, Marianne L. Bell

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Tessie Hutchinson And The American System Of Capital Punishment, Earl F. Martin

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Deregulation Of The Death Penalty, Kenneth Williams

Santa Clara Law Review

No abstract provided.

Death Is The Whole Ball Game, Jeffrey A. Fagan, James S. Liebman, Valerie West

Faculty Scholarship

In Capital Appeals Revisited and The Meaning of Capital Appeals, Barry Latzer and James N.G. Cauthen argue that a study of capital appeals should focus only on overturned findings of guilt, and complain that in A Broken System we examine all overturned capital verdicts. But the question they want studied cannot provide an accurate evaluation of a system of capital punishment. By proposing to count only "conviction" error and not "sentence" error, Latzer and Cauthen ignore that if a death sentence is overturned, the case is no longer capital and the system of capital punishment has failed to achieve its …

Death Matters – A Reply To Latzer And Cauthen, James S. Liebman, Jeffrey A. Fagan, Valerie West

Faculty Scholarship

The legal treatment of capital punishment in the United States "rests squarely on the predicate that the penalty of death is qualitatively different from a sentence of imprisonment, however long. Death, in its finality, differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison term differs from one of only a year or two. This predicate is among "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" and determine whether a punishment is "cruel and unusual" in violation of the Constitution. Because "'[f]rom the point of view of the defendant, [death] is different in both its severity …

Still Unfair, Still Arbitrary - But Do We Care?, Samuel R. Gross

Other Publications

Welcome. It is a pleasure to see everybody at this bright and cheery hour of the morning. My assignment is to try to give an overview of the status of the death penalty in America at the beginning of the twenty-first century. I will try to put that in the context of how the death penalty was viewed thirty years ago, or more, and maybe that will tell us something about how the death penalty will be viewed thirty or forty years from now.

When The Wall Has Fallen: Decades Of Failure In The Supervision Of Capital Juries, José F. Anderson

All Faculty Scholarship

Since the return of capital punishment after Furman v. Georgia nearly three decades ago, the Supreme Court of the United States has struggled to control the administration of capital punishment when those decisions are made or recommended by a citizen jury. Although there is no constitutional requirement that a jury participate in the death penalty process, most states do provide, through their capital punishment statutes, that a jury will participate in the decision. The preference for jury sentencing in these circumstances reflects a reluctance to leave power over life solely in the hands of one judge. Still, some scholars have …

The Overproduction Of Death, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, Professor Liebman concludes that trial actors have strong incentives to – and do – overproduce death sentences, condemning to death men and women who, under state substantive law, do not deserve that penalty. Because trial-level procedural rights do not weaken these incentives or constrain the overproduction that results, it falls to post-trial procedural review – which is ill-suited to the task and fails to feed back needed information to the trial level – to identify the many substantive mistakes made at capital trials. This system is difficult to reform because it benefits both pro-death penalty trial actors …

Capital Attrition: Error Rates In Capital Cases, 1973-1995, James S. Liebman, Jeffery Fagan, Valerie West, Jonathan Lloyd

Faculty Scholarship

Americans seem to be of two minds about the death penalty. In the last several years, the overall number of executions has risen steeply, reaching a fifty year high this year. Although two-thirds of the public support the penalty, this figure represents a sharp decline from the four-fifths of the population that endorsed the death penalty only six years ago, leaving support for capital punishment at a twenty year low. When life without parole is offered as an alternative, support for the penalty drops even more – often below a majority. Grants of executive clemency reached a twenty year high …

A Broken System: Error Rates In Capital Cases, 1973-1995, James S. Liebman, Jeffrey Fagan, Valerie West

Faculty Scholarship

There is a growing bipartisan consensus that flaws in America's death-penalty system have reached crisis proportions. Many fear that capital trials put people on death row who don't belong there. Others say capital appeals take too long. This report – the first statistical study ever undertaken of modern American capital appeals (4,578 of them in state capital cases between 1973 and 1995) – suggests that both claims are correct.

Capital sentences do spend a long time under judicial review. As this study documents, however, judicial review takes so long precisely because American capital sentences are so persistently and systematically fraught …