Law Commons^™

Lockett Symposium: Recollections On The Lockett Case In The U.S. Supreme Court, Joel Berger

ConLawNOW

Recollections of an NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney who worked with Professor Amsterdam on the Lockett case.

Lockett Symposium: Lockett As It Was, Is Now, And Ever Shall Should Be, Karen A. Steele

ConLawNOW

Lockett made clear what was constitutionally unacceptable in capital sentencing statutes (limiting the range of mitigating factors to be considered) while affirmatively heralding the significance and breadth of mitigating factors unique to the defendant that must be affirmatively and independently considered by jurors, courts and counsel; the inverse correlation between mitigating factors and disproportionate sentencing; and the interrelationship between mitigating factors and narrowing—all in an effort to provide a “meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which the death penalty is imposed from the many cases in which it is not.” The threatened and actual use of “double-edged” aspects …

Introduction To The "Lockett V. Ohio At 40 Symposium": Rethinking The Death Penalty 40 Years After The U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Margery B. Koosed

ConLawNOW

Professor Koosed provides an introduction to the symposium on the fortieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lockett v. Ohio, which discusses the backstory and import of the case. The decision in Lockett laid the framework for narrowing application of the death penalty by overturning Ohio’s 1974 era death penalty law, and heralding the significance and breadth of mitigating factors that must be considered by jurors and judges making the life or death decision in the penalty phase of capital cases, and tapped in to issues of disproportionate sentencing (those decided and yet to be).

Lockett Symposium: Is The Supreme Court's Command On Mitigating Circumstances A Spoonful Of Sugar With A Poison Pill For The Death Penalty?, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier

ConLawNOW

This Article addresses how Lockett v. Ohio and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on mitigating factors in capital cases established a more humane death penalty while at the same time undermining the death penalty system. The Court’s emphasis on the constitutional importance of individualized sentencing has, in effect, helped return the U.S. death penalty system to an unconstitutional arbitrary and discriminatory system.

After the U.S. Supreme Court effectively struck down the existing death penalty statutes in 1972, state legislatures responded with new statutes designed to try to make a fairer and less arbitrary death penalty. When the Supreme Court reviewed these …

Lockett Symposium: Lockett V. Ohio And The Rise Of Mitigation Specialists, Russell Stetler

ConLawNOW

This article discusses the impact of Lockett in terms of the rise of mitigation specialists—the capital defense team members from a variety of multidisciplinary backgrounds whose dedicated function is to investigate the social history of the client in order to facilitate an outcome that avoids execution. In Part I, the article discusses how Lockett ended the confusion that resulted from the Supreme Court’s prior death penalty decisions in the 1970s. In Part II, the article examines the emergence of mitigation investigation as a central obligation of capital defense in response to Lockett, and the diverse career paths that led …

Lockett Symposium: Justice White's Lockett Concurrence And The Evolving Standards For A Capital Defendant's Mens Rea, Jordan Berman

ConLawNOW

In Lockett v. Ohio, Justice Byron White authored a separate concurring opinion specifically to assert that capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment when imposed absent “a finding that the defendant possessed a purpose to cause the death of the victim.” This view was largely vindicated when Justice White authored the opinions in Enmund v. Florida and Cabana v. Bullock, in which the Court held that the death sentence could not constitutionally be imposed on one who did not kill or attempt to kill or have any intention of participating in or facilitating a killing. Nonetheless, just one year …

Lockett Symposium: Reflections On The Sandra Lockett Case, Peggy Cooper Davis

ConLawNOW

Professor Davis, who was one of the lawyers handling Sandra Lockett’s Supreme Court case, describes Ms. Lockett's courage under threat of execution and explains why principles of respect for human dignity should have forbidden placing her in that horrifying position.

Lockett Symposium: The Other Lockett, Dennis Balske

ConLawNOW

Sandra’s case was perfect for the New York Times. James’s makes for choice tabloid reading.

Few people realize that two Locketts were involved in the famous Lockett case–Sandra and her brother, James. Sandra is famous because she is the Lockett in the United States Supreme Court decision. James is unknown because the Ohio Supreme Court remanded his case to Akron for a new trial.

Sandra lost her direct appeal in the Ohio Supreme Court. Eventually the United States Supreme Court granted review and reached its all-important decision striking down Ohio’s death penalty statute and mandating that capital defendants be permitted …