Criminal Procedure Commons^™

The Risks Of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions Are Common In Capital Cases (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross

Articles

As the Supreme Court has said, time and again, death is different: It is "different in kind from any other punishment imposed under our system of criminal justice;"1 it "differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year sentence differs from one of only a year or two;"' 2 and so forth. Traditionally, this observation has justified special procedural protections for capital defendants. Justice Harlan put it nicely nearly forty years ago: "I do not concede that whatever process is 'due' an offender faced with a fine or a prison sentence necessarily satisfies the requirements of the Constitution in a capital …

Reply To Daniel Polsby (Symposium: The New York Death Penalty In Context), Samuel R. Gross

Articles

I'd like to offer a few words in response to Professor Polsby's articulate, forceful and amusing essay in favor of capital punishment.

Mature Adjudication: Interpretive Choice In Recent Death Penalty Cases, Bernard Harcourt

Faculty Scholarship

Capital punishment presents a "hard" case for adjudication. It provokes sharp conflict between competing constitutional interpretations and invariably raises questions of judicial bias. This is particularly true in the new Republic of South Africa, where the framers of the interim constitution deliberately were silent regarding the legality of the death penalty. The tension is of equivalent force in the United States, where recent expressions of core constitutional rights have raised potentially irreconcilable conflicts in the application of capital punishment.

Two recent death penalty decisions – the South African Constitutional Court opinions in State v. Makwanyane and the United States Supreme …

How Juries Decide Death: The Contributions Of The Capital Jury Project, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 1988 I concluded a review of what was then known about capital jury decision-making with the following observations: “[T]he penalty phase presents significant incongruities. The jurors are charged with representing the community's judgment, yet the voir dire and challenge processes have eliminated significant segments of the public from the jury. Jurors have been influenced by preceding events during voir dire questioning and the trial in pivotal ways, yet they are instructed to focus only on aggravating and mitigating evidence. They are told to ignore their emotions in perhaps one of the most emotionally charged decisions they will ever make, …

Virginia's New State Habeas: What Every Attorney Needs To Know, Gregory J. Weinig

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Reflections On O.J. And The Gas Chamber, J. Michael Echevarria

San Diego Law Review

This Article discusses the traditional justifications advanced in support of the death penalty and compares them with current empirical data. The justifications are then applied to the O.J. Simpson case. The Article examines the data and reasons for the incidence of error in convicting innocent defendants in capital cases. The type of representation available to O.J. Simpson is contrasted with the quality of representation accorded to most capital defendants. After comparing the empirical data with the ideological justifications for capital punishment, the Author concludes that capital punishment is not necessary.

Stockton V. Murray 41 F.3d 920 (4th Cir. 1994) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Romance Of Revenge: An Alternative History Of Jeffrey Dahmer's Trial, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

On Feb. 17, 1992, Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to fifteen consecutive terms of life imprisonment for killing and dismembering fifteen young men and boys. Dahmer had been arrested six months earlier, on July 22, 1991. On Jan. 13 he pled guilty to the fifteen murder counts against him, leaving open only the issue of his sanity. Jury selection began two weeks later, and the trial proper started on Jan. 30. The jury heard two weeks of horrifying testimony about murder, mutilation and necrophilia; they deliberated for five hours before finding that Dahmer was sane when he committed thos crimes. After …

Introduction, William S. Geimer

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Burden V. Zant 114 S. Ct. 654 (1994)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction, William S. Geimer

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Spencer V. Murray (Spencer H) 18 F. 3d 229 (4th Cir. 1994)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Overlooked Victories: Techniques For Negotiating Non-Capital Outcomes, Lesley Meredith James

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

To Attain The Ends Of Justice: Confronting Virginia's Default Rules In Capital Cases, Michael A. Groot

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

An Introduction To Post-Conviction Remedies, Practice And Procedure In South Carolina, John H. Blume

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The purpose of this article is to discuss various aspects of an inmate's available post-conviction remedies in South Carolina. Very little has been written about this topic, perhaps because post-conviction is considered by many to be the "redheaded stepchild of the legal system." Despite the importance of post-conviction remedies as a safeguard against unjust, unconstitutional, and erroneous confinements, this systemic devaluing of the importance of the post-conviction process is widespread. Convicted persons in South Carolina raising post-conviction challenges rely almost exclusively on appointed counsel, most of whom have little experience in this area of the law. Counsels' enthusiasm for the …

Is Electrocution An Unconstitutional Method Of Execution? The Engineering Of Death Over The Century, Deborah W. Denno

Faculty Scholarship

This Article provides the Eighth Amendment analysis of electrocution that the courts thus far have not approached. The analysis has two parts. The first inquires whether, according to available scientific evidence, electrocution amounts to cruel and unusual punishment even if it is administered as planned. The second inquires whether, in light of the frequency with which electrocutions are botched, continuing the practice amounts to cruel and unusual punishment even if the properly administered electrocution would not.

Depravity Thrice Removed: Using The 'Heinous, Cruel, Or Depraved' Factor To Aggravate Convictions Of Nontriggermen Accomplices In Capital Cases, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

In Tison v. Arizona, the Tison brothers' appeal from their death sentences, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a nontriggerman convicted of first-degree felony murder could constitutionally be executed if he was a major participant in the crime and if he exhibited a reckless disregard for human life. This decision blurred the bright-line rule announced just five years earlier in Enmund v. Florida, which limited the death penalty to defendants who kill, attempt to kill, or at least intend to kill. Tison thus dramatically increased the exposure of nontriggermen to capital punishment, undercutting the death penalty's limited purpose of identifying …

Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions In Capital Cases, Theodore Eisenberg, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

A fatal mistake. A defendant is sentenced to die because the jury was misinformed about the law. The justice system should be designed to prevent such a tragic error. Yet our interviews with jurors who served in South Carolina capital cases indicate that this nightmare is a reality.

Although our data are limited to South Carolina, the question whether jurors are adequately instructed in capital cases is of national concern. For example, the issue whether jurors should be more fully informed about the alternative to a death sentence has arisen in other states. And the question whether jurors understand the …

Harmless Error In Federal Habeas Corpus After Brecht V. Abrahamson, John H. Blume, Stephen P. Garvey

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The law of habeas corpus has changed again. This time it was the law of harmless error. Before Brecht v. Abrahamson, the courts applied the same harmless error rule on direct appeal and in federal habeas corpus. Under that rule, embraced for constitutional errors in Chapman v. California, a conviction tainted by a constitutional error susceptible to harmless error analysis could be upheld only if the state demonstrated that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. After Brecht, the venerable Chapman rule still applies to constitutional errors identified and reviewed on direct appeal, but an ostensibly "less …

Pruett V. Thompson 996 F.2d 1560 (4th Cir. 1993)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Morgan V. Illinois: The Defense Gets The Reverse- Witherspoon Question, Thomas Joshua R. Archer

Mercer Law Review

In Morgan v. Illinois the United States Supreme Court settled the "reverse- Witherspoon" question. The Court held that a trial court in a capital case must, upon the defendant's request, specifically inquire into a prospective juror's views on capital punishment and that a potential juror who would always vote for a sentence of death, regardless of the facts, must be struck for cause. Further, the Court stated that the presence of even one partial juror on a defendant's panel offends the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury and the sentence may not stand.

Before Morgan …

Wise V. Williams 982 F.2d 142 (4th Cir. 1992)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Chronological Outline Of A Capital Murder Trial, Rhonda L. Overstreet

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Flow Chart Of The Stages Of A Capital Murder Trial

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Some Steps Between Attitudes And Verdicts, Phoebe C. Ellsworth

Book Chapters

Most research that has attempted to predict verdict preferences on the basis of stable juror characteristics, such as attitudes and personality traits, has found that individual differences among jurors are not very useful predictors, accounting for only a small proportion of the variance in verdict choices. Some commentators have therefore concluded that verdicts are overwhelmingly accounted for by "the weight of the evidence," and that differences among jurors have negligible effects. But there is a paradox here: In most cases the weight of the evidence is insufficient to produce firstballot unanimity in the jury (Hans & Vidmar, 1986; Hastie, Penrod, …

The Romance Of Revenge: Capital Punishment In America, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

On February 17, 1992, Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to 15 consecutive terms of life imprisonment for killing and dismembering 15 young men and boys (Associated Press 1992a). Dahmer had been arrested six months earlier, on July 22, 1991. On January 13 he pled guilty to the fifteen murder counts against him, leaving open only the issue of his sanity. Jury selection began two weeks later, and the trial proper started on January 30. The jury heard two weeks of testimony about murder, mutilation and necrophilia; they deliberated for 5 hours before finding that Dahmer was sane when he committed these …

Medina V. California 112 S.Ct. 2572 (1992)

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Drug Felony Capital Murder In Virginia, Sharron Lamoreaux

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Opposing Peremptory Challenges Under Batson, Marcus E. Garcia, James W. Miller Jr.

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Mitigation: An Outline Of Law, Method And Strategy, Peter T. Hansen

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.