Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dying Twice: Incarceration On Death Row, Michael B. Mushlin
Dying Twice: Incarceration On Death Row, Michael B. Mushlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Dying Twice is an important report. The work is a collaboration between the Corrections Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, which I chaired, and the Committee on Capital Punishment of the Association chaired by Norman Greene. The working group that researched and wrote the report was drawn from members of both committees. The attorneys and the physician who served on the committee are wonderful, talented, dedicated people. It was a pleasure to work with professionals of this caliber on such an important effort. Dying Twice was endorsed as the position of the Association …
Dying Twice: Conditions On New York's Death Row, Michael B. Mushlin
Dying Twice: Conditions On New York's Death Row, Michael B. Mushlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In 1995 New York State revived the death penalty as a punishment for certain categories of murder, and established a “death row” for condemned men at the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York (variously, “Clinton” or the “Prison”). Four years later, in October 1999, two committees of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (the “Association”) joined together to study the conditions of confinement on this death row--or, as it is officially called, the Unit for Condemned Persons (the “UCP”). These committees--the Committee on Corrections and the Committee on Capital Punishment--formed a joint subcommittee (the …
Gideon V. Wainwright Revisited: What Does The Right To Counsel Guarantee Today?, Michael B. Mushlin
Gideon V. Wainwright Revisited: What Does The Right To Counsel Guarantee Today?, Michael B. Mushlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court unanimously held that indigent state felony defendants are constitutionally entitled to the appointment of trial counsel. The opinion aroused wide support, and even enthusiasm, almost from the moment it was announced in 1963. Two and a half decades later this support has not diminished. However, are the words of praise only lip service to the noble idea of the right to counsel? Has Gideon really made a difference? Has its promise of a fair shake for poor criminal defendants been kept, or has Gideon meant only that defendants are provided with the fleeting …