March 3
IOWA:
Death penalty bill stalls; key backer aims for 2018
The lead sponsor of legislation that would have reinstated the death penalty in
Iowa says scheduling conflicts have doomed the bill and it will not be
considered again this year. Republican Jerry Behn of Boone has been trying to
reinstate capital punishment in Iowa since he was first elected to the senate
in 1996.
"I'm hoping we can get it taken back up next year," Behn said.
Behn's bill only would have allowed a death sentence when someone was convicted
of kidnapping, rape and then the murder of the victim.
"This is an effort to appease some of those who thought, basically, that the
death penalty was inappropriate at any time," Behn said this afternoon during
an interview with three statehouse reporters. "After some of the horrific
murders that have occurred, I said maybe we can get a consensus to get
something back on the books again."
Behn said he's especially troubled by the life sentence given to the man
convicted of the brutal 2005 death of a 10-year-old Cedar Rapids girl who was
kidnapped, raped and murdered. Jetseta Gage's mother had planned to travel to
Des Moines this afternoon to testify for Behn's bill. However, the senate
schedule is chaotic today as senators rush to find meeting rooms and take
committee votes on dozens of bills. The room in which debate on the death
penalty bill was to occur was double-booked.
Connie Ryan of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa was in the hallway outside that
room.
"We had a line-up of people of faith and civil rights advocates and other folks
who were prepared to speak and say that Iowa should not ever be a death penalty
state," Ryan said during an interview.
With DNA evidence exonerating some death row inmates and officials in other
states struggling to find the right drugs to administer lethal injections, Ryan
said it would have been "surprising" to see Iowa reinstate capital punishment.
"States were not getting it right...We know as a nation we're having these
conversation and really questioning whether states across the nation should be
doing this," Ryan said. "...It was disappointing to see the bill, but we're
very grateful that the conversation has stopped for the moment, at least."
4 other Republicans serving in the senate co-sponsored the bill with Behn. He
believes that's the most support he's seen for reinstating the death penalty in
the past 2 decades.
"I would truly like to believe we'd never have to use it. To say that I am a
proponent...that's not really accurate. I would just as soon nobody ever had to
use it," Behn said. "I just think it needs to be a toolbox that's available."
Iowa outlawed capital punishment in 1965. 3 decades later, in 1995, the Iowa
Senate overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would have reinstated the death
penalty. Only 11 of the 50 senators voted for it.
(source: radioiowa.com)
COLORADO:
Colorado death row inmate Sir Mario Owens seeks new trial amid juror misconduct
allegations ---- Arrest warrant issued for juror who skipped court date, case
could overturn death penalty in notorious murder
Rhonda Fields, left, mother of Javad Marshall-Fields, and Christine Wolfe,
mother of Vivian Wolfe, Sylvia Marshall, Javad's grandmother, and family friend
gather outside the courthouse at Arapahoe County Justice Center May 14, 2008.
Sir Mario Owens sits, Monday March. 13, 2006, in Arapahoe County Court during
the 1st hearing after being indicted in the June 20 double homicide that killed
a witness and his girlfriend.
An arrest warrant has been issued for a juror who served on one of the most
high-profile homicide trials of the past decade in Colorado, part of an inquiry
into possible misconduct that could overturn two separate murder cases and a
death sentence.
A judge issued the warrant Feb. 17, after the juror failed to show up for a
court appearance where she was to be questioned about her service in the trial
10 years ago. In a court document filed last month, defense attorneys for death
row inmate Sir Mario Owens accuse the juror of numerous instances of misconduct
during the first of Owens' 2 murder trials, including:
--Repeatedly lying on her juror questionnaire.
--Having an undisclosed friendship with a relative of 1 of the victims in the
case.
--Not revealing that she knew members of Owens' family, which she told a fellow
juror after the trial caused her to fear for her safety.
--Not disclosing that her son was friends with several witnesses who testified
during the trial.
--Not revealing that she spoke with 1 witness at her son's apartment as the
trial was ongoing.
--Not disclosing that she personally knew several other witnesses - including
at least 1 who she has since said mouthed the words "Hi, Mom" to her while she
sat in the jury box.
The Denver Post obtained the court document through a records request, which
the judge overseeing the case granted after hearing debate between prosecutors
and defense attorneys.
Jurors are supposed to be impartial, and judges give strict warnings during
trials that they are not to have contact with witnesses or attorneys in the
case outside of the courtroom. Any contact is supposed to be immediately
reported to the judge.
If proved true, these allegations could be enough to overturn Owens' conviction
in the trial, which involved a 2004 murder in Aurora's Lowry Park. That
conviction was used to win a death sentence against Owens in a separate murder
trial, which would also be thrown into doubt.
"The number and types of issues that this juror had,' said Christopher Decker,
a Denver defense attorney not involved in the cases, 'are unlike anything I've
ever seen in Colorado law."
Sentences and convictions have been upended in Colorado before based on much
less extensive allegations of misconduct. For instance, the death sentence for
convicted killer Robert Harlan was overturned in 2005 after it was revealed
that jurors consulted a Bible during deliberations. A man accused of killing
his wife was granted a new trial in 2014 when it was found that a juror in his
1st trial had not disclosed on her questionnaire that she was a victim of
domestic violence.
Attorneys for Owens declined to comment. In their court motion filed last
month, they call the juror's conduct "extraordinary and egregious."
Prosecutors at the Arapahoe County District Attorney's office also declined to
comment.
In a written response to the defense's motion, prosecutors argue that the
allegations against the juror "have been thoroughly and repeatedly litigated in
previous hearings." In particular, they argue that Owens' attorneys failed to
prove that the juror's friendship with a victim's family member pre-dated the
trial. They say the juror listened to the evidence in the Lowry Park trial
fairly.
"This juror has come in and testified under oath that the fact she knew a few
people who were witnesses did not impact her service in this case," Ann Tomsic,
a chief deputy district attorney in Arapahoe County, said during a hearing on
the issue Feb. 17.
The defense's most recent motion and other court documents show that the
juror's name is Stephanie Griggs. However, she is most commonly referred to in
the records by her number: Juror 75.
Owens is 1 of 3 inmates on Colorado's death row, and the cases that put him
there were among the most closely watched in the state's recent history.
In the Lowry Park case, Owens was convicted of 1st-degree murder in the
shooting death of Gregory Vann. That conviction played a significant role for
prosecutors in establishing a motive for Owens' involvement in the 2005
shooting deaths of Javad Marshall-Fields and his fiancee, Vivian Wolfe.
Marshall-Fields had been wounded during the earlier shooting that claimed
Vann's life. When he was killed, Marshall-Fields had been scheduled to testify
against another man - Robert Ray, who is also on death row - accused of
involvement in Vann's death.
Marshall-Fields' and Wolfe's deaths focused attention on threats to witnesses
in Colorado and prompted legislation that improved protections.
Marshall-Fields' mother, Rhonda Fields, responded to her son's death by
becoming involved in community activism. She is now a state senator.
On Thursday, Fields said she did not see any signs during the trial of possible
jury misconduct and said she doesn't believe she has ever met Griggs. She said
Owens' attorneys are just doing their job, but it also pains her that debates
during the appeals often obscure the lives that were taken.
"I have to let the criminal justice process play out," she said. "But at the
end of the day it's about murder. And what I want is justice for my son and his
fiancee."
Owens' and Ray's murder convictions are still in the early stages of the
appeals process - a process that has been marked by controversy.
In 2012, one set of attorneys for Owens began investigating a report of juror
misconduct after stumbling across an interview with a juror from the Lowry Park
trial. In that interview, the juror said another juror - now identified by
defense attorneys as Griggs - said after the trial was over that she "knew
Mario's family" and she "was afraid for her safety because she knew about the
people Mario was with."
Owens' attorneys dug deeper and turned up what they say are examples of
misconduct. For instance, on the questionnaire that Griggs filled out prior to
being seated on the jury, she said she had never been convicted of a crime, had
no family members who had ever been victims of a crime and had never been
involved in a court case. All 3 of those are false, defense attorneys argue.
They also allege that she lied about her educational background.
Further investigation found numerous apparent personal connections to the Lowry
Park trial. Griggs' son has told investigators he was present at the shooting -
although it is unclear whether she knew that when she served on the jury. Many
of his friends, who had often spent time at Griggs' house, testified during the
trial. She saw one friend at her son's apartment the afternoon following his
testimony.
"Hi, Mom. I saw you today," the witness is alleged to have said to Griggs,
according to the defense motion filed last month.
"I told her, you need to let whoever you need to let know that you need to get
off of this, that you're too close," Griggs' son later testified in a
post-conviction hearing.
Griggs has testified three times in court so far during the post-conviction
process, according to court documents, and has repeatedly said she recognized
witnesses during the trial - noting that at least 1 mouthed the words "Hi, Mom"
to her in the courtroom because her son's friends viewed her like a mother.
However, apart from 1 instance where she told the judge she recognized someone
sitting in the courtroom audience, there is no record of her having informed
anyone during the trial about her connections to the case, according to the
defense's motion.
In an interview with a police detective after the trial, Griggs said, "Knowing
them didn't weigh on me" and that she listened to evidence fairly. But in court
testimony last year, she said she "should have been picked for a different jury
or not picked at all."
Owens' attorneys argue their client is owed a new trial for Vann's death. If he
is granted one, that would at a minimum put the death penalty case on hold and
it would require a new death penalty trial if he is acquitted, said Decker, the
defense attorney not involved in the cases.
Even if Owens isn't granted a new trial for the Lowry Park case, his attorneys
say he should still be given a new death penalty trial because the state public
defender's office, which represented Owens in that case, received a tip prior
to the death penalty trial about juror misconduct in the earlier case but
failed to follow up adequately. That failure means Owens was denied his
constitutional right to effective assistance of legal counsel, Owens' current
attorneys say.
Judge Christopher Munch, a retired Jefferson County District Court judge who is
now overseeing the first stage of Owens' appeal, will have to decide what
happens next. In the Feb. 17 hearing, he said he worried about the consequences
for the justice system if jurors who serve on high-profile cases can expect to
have their lives scrutinized during the appeals.
If the misconduct allegations are not true, he said, "What this juror has been
put through is extraordinary."
Owens' attorney Jonathan Reppucci responded sharply.
"What this juror has put our client through is extraordinary," he said. "This
juror is a fraud."
There is currently no deadline by which Munch must issue a ruling on the entire
appeal, although he could decide soon whether to hold new hearings on the juror
issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timeline in the Sir Mario Owens murder cases --July 4, 2004: Gregory Vann, 20,
is shot and killed in Aurora's Lowry Park. Vann's friend Javad Marshall-Fields
is wounded in the shooting.
--July 13, 2004: Robert Ray is arrested and charged as an accessory in the
Lowry Park shooting. He later posts bond.
--June 19, 2005: Marshall-Fields is threatened and warned not to testify
against Ray.
--June 20, 2005: Marshall-Fields, 22, and his fiancee, 22-year-old Vivian
Wolfe, are shot to death while driving on Dayton Street in Aurora. An intensive
police investigation follows.
--Aug. 12, 2005: Ray's charges in Vann's killing are upgraded to 1st-degree
murder.
--Sept. 29, 2005: An arrest warrant is issued for Sir Mario Owens on charges of
1st-degree murder in connection with Vann's killing.
--March 8, 2006: A grand jury indicts Ray and Owens on charges of 1st-degree
murder in Marshall-Fields' and Wolfe's killings.
--Nov. 3, 2006: A jury finds Ray guilty of attempted murder and of being an
accessory to murder in the Lowry Park shooting. It does not find him guilty of
1st-degree murder.
--Jan 30, 2007: A separate jury convicts Owens of 1st-degree murder in Vann's
killing. Owens' attorneys are now challenging the conviction based on
allegations of juror misconduct.
--June 16, 2008: Owens is convicted of 1st-degree murder in Marshall-Fields'
and Wolfe's killings. He is sentenced to death. Prosecutors used Owens'
conviction in the Lowry Park shooting as evidence in arguing for the death
penalty.
--June 8, 2009: Ray is convicted of 1st-degree murder and sentenced to death
for Marshall-Fields' and Wolfe's killings.
--Summer 2012: New attorneys for Owens, working on his appeal, begin
investigating possible juror misconduct in the Lowry Park trial.
--March 2015 and Oct. 2016: Stephanie Griggs, the juror defense attorneys have
accused of misconduct during the Lowry Park trial, testifies during appellate
hearings.
--Feb. 17, 2017: Judge Christopher Munch issues a warrant for Griggs' arrest,
after she failed to show up for a court appearance she had been summoned to
attend.
(source: Denver Post)
UTAH:
Utah inmate ordered to stand trial for gruesome slaying of cellmate
A Utah State Prison inmate was ordered Thursday to stand trial for, and could
face the death penalty if convicted in, the gruesome slaying of his cellmate in
August.
Timothy Patrick Maez, 38, after a 2-day preliminary hearing in 3rd District
Court, was bound over to be tried for aggravated murder, a 1st-degree felony,
after he allegedly used a pen, a spork and a bedsheet to stab and strangle his
33-year-old cellmate, James Charles Corbett.
Prosecutors they are considering seeking the death penalty for Maez, they said
Thursday, but they have not made an official declaration.
Maez and Corbett were housed in the prison's Olympus facility, which houses
inmates who have mental-health issues. They shared a cell in the section for
inmates who were stabilizing, testified corrections Officer Jeremy Levao.
On Aug. 10 at about 11:30 p.m., just before a routine cell check, Maez punched
Corbett, slammed his head on the floor, stabbed him with a pen and cut him with
a razor, testified Unified police Detective Brent Adamson, who investigated the
slaying. The officer said Maez also told him about stomping a pen into
Corbett's ear and that he had tried to stab Corbett's eye socket with a spork.
Adamson testified that Maez told him he strangled Corbett with a torn bed
sheet, and that after the assault, he swallowed 3 pens, which X-rays confirmed.
Maez told Adamson that he stopped choking Corbett when he heard the door to the
section open, about 2 minutes before the officers came to his cell.
Adamson testified that Maez also told him he hears voices, and a registered
nurse at the prison, Karlene Tuimauga, confirmed that Maez took anti-psychotic
medications.
Matthew Athey, an inmate from the neighboring cell, said he heard Maez shouting
at Corbett during the assault.
Athey said he heard Corbett scream for help during the beating. He talked to
Maez through a vent after the stabbing and before the choking and said Maez had
asked him for advice.
According to his testimony, Athey told Maez to either get medical help or
"finish it."
When officers checked the cell, they found Maez covered in blood and calmly
holding a cup of tea, said corrections Officer Christopher Facer.
Corbett was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.
Utah Chief Medical Examiner Erik Christensen testified that strangulation
killed Corbett, and that the other injuries wouldn't have been fatal on their
own.
Inmates, medical personnel and Adamson testified that the cellmates had wanted
to be separated because Maez had a problem with the nature of Corbett's crime,
which involved the sexual abuse of a child.
But 4 corrections officers testified that they were unaware of conflict between
the cellmates or any request made by Corbett to move for safety reasons.
Responding to questions from the defense, corrections Sgt. David Hallan said
officers don't normally know medical information or the diagnoses of inmates.
"We watch their behavior," Hallan said, adding that if he saw something
concerning, he would bring it up to the medical staff. Other than
crisis-intervention training a couple years ago, Hallan said he has never
received special instructions for how to deal with inmates who have
mental-health problems.
(source: Salt Lake Tribune)
MONTANA:
Death penalty abolition bill 'dead' in Montana
Efforts have fallen short to procedurally "blast" a bill to end the death
penalty onto Montana's House floor for full consideration. The March 1 deadline
for passing legislation to the state Senate has passed.
"We probably had the votes to pass HB 366 out of the House but just didn't have
a workable path to successfully get it out of the House Judiciary Committee
after they tabled the bill" on a 9-10 vote Feb. 10, said Matthew Brower,
executive director of the Montana Catholic Conference, told NCR in an email.
"That's the bad news. The good news," he added, "is that we are seeing
increasing support for abolition among Republicans. Particularly encouraging is
the support we are seeing from young Republicans, a number of whom are
Catholic."
On Feb. 6, Brower and 15 others testified in support of HB 366 ("Abolish death
penalty and replace with life without parole") before the Judiciary Committee.
Brower also submitted a joint letter from Montana's 2 Catholic bishops - George
Thomas of Helena and Michael Warfel of Great Falls-Billings - which reiterated
"their opposition to the death penalty and its harmful impact on all parties
and on a society that values life," according to the Helena diocese website.
Montana legislators have considered bills to ban the death penalty since 1999.
"The ball is moving in the right direction and we and the Montana Abolition
Coalition are going to keep working this issue to make sure death penalty
abolition becomes a reality in Montana," Brower wrote. "So we look forward to
2019 and begin laying the groundwork for those efforts beginning now."
(source: National Catholic Reporter)
CALIFORNIA:
Defense tries to cast doubt on DNA in Sierra LaMar murder case
Attorneys for a man on trial in the kidnapping and slaying of South Bay
teenager Sierra LaMar tried to poke holes in the prosecution's case Thursday by
raising the possibility that DNA from a person unconnected to a killing can
show up at a crime scene.
While cross-examining Santa Clara County criminologist Michele Bell, an
attorney for defendant Antolin Garcia-Torres, 25, asked about a local killing
in which an innocent man???s DNA was found on the victim.
But when defense attorney Bicka Barlow started to ask Bell about the old murder
case, prosecutor David Boyd quickly requested a sidebar with the judge, who
later instructed the Santa Clara County jury to disregard Barlow's line of
questioning.
Barlow did not get the chance to mention what San Jose murder case she was
referring to. But in 2013, 26-year-old San Jose resident Lukis Anderson was
charged with murdering Monte Sereno millionaire Raveesh "Ravi" Kumra and then
was freed from jail after more than 5 months.
Although Anderson's DNA was found on the victim's body, he was eventually
cleared after it was proved that he was drunk and unconscious at a hospital at
the time of the slaying.
Anderson's DNA was transferred to Kumra's fingernails after the same 2
paramedics who treated Anderson for intoxication at a San Jose liquor store
took the emergency call at Kumra's mansion hours later, according to Santa
Clara County prosecutors.
But there are several key differences between Anderson's and Garcia-Torres'
cases, most notably the fact that Anderson had an indisputable alibi, proved by
hospital records. Garcia-Torres alleges he was fishing alone at the time
15-year-old Sierra disappeared on March 16, 2012.
Although the body of Sierra - presumed dead by authorities - has not been
found, her phone was discovered in a field less than a mile from her home a day
after she vanished. The next day, her purse and the clothes she was believed to
be wearing when she left home were spotted a short distance from where her
phone was found. The prosecution's strongest piece of evidence is the strand of
Sierra's hair found on rope in Garcia-Torres' Volkswagen Jetta. The defense has
tried to cast doubt on the origin of the hair, citing a months-long gap between
when the rope was recovered and the hair was found by investigators.
Criminalists with the Santa Clara County crime lab found 3 DNA profiles on
Sierra's jeans: one belonging to Sierra, one believed to be Garcia-Torres' and
a 3rd from an unknown contributor.
Garcia-Torres could face the death penalty if convicted of Sierra's abduction
and murder. He is also being tried on charges he attempted to kidnap and
carjack 3 women at Morgan Hill Safeways in 2009. One of the sites was a Safeway
where Garcia-Torres worked.
(source: sfgate.com)
USA:
Chemerinsky: Why the Supreme Court's ruling on race-based evidence matters
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Feb. 22 in Buck v. Davis is important for the
criminal justice system on many levels. The court clarified the standard for
federal courts of appeals when considering whether to allow appeals from the
denial of habeas corpus petitions. Also, the court found ineffective assistance
of counsel, something relatively rare for the Supreme Court. Perhaps most
importantly, the court spoke emphatically about the need to eliminate any taint
of race from criminal trials.
Facts and procedural history
Duane Buck was convicted of killing 2 people in Texas in 1995. At the penalty
phase, where the jury was to consider whether to impose the death penalty, the
initial question was whether Buck posed a future danger. At the time of Buck's
trial, a Texas jury could impose the death penalty only if it found -
unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt - "a probability that the defendant
would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing
threat to society."
Buck's lawyer called several witnesses, including 2 expert witnesses, on the
question of Buck's future dangerousness. 1 of these experts, Dr. Walter
Quijano, had been appointed by the presiding judge to conduct a psychological
evaluation. Dr. Quijano thought it significant that Buck's prior acts of
violence had arisen from romantic relationships with women. Buck, of course,
would not form any such relationships if imprisoned for life. In determining
whether Buck was likely to pose a danger in the future, Dr. Quijano considered
7 "statistical factors." The 4th factor was "race." His report read: "4. Race.
Black: Increased probability. There is an overrepresentation of Blacks among
the violent offenders."
Despite having this report that said that Buck was more likely to be dangerous
because of his race, the defense counsel called Dr. Quijano as a witness. On
direct examination from Buck's lawyer, Dr. Quijano stated that certain factors
were "know[n] to predict future dangerousness" and he identified race as one of
them.
On cross-examination by the prosecutor, Dr. Quijano repeated this. The
prosecutor asked: "You have determined that the sex factor, that a male is more
violent than a female because that's just the way it is, and that the race
factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated
reasons; is that correct?"
Dr. Quijano replied, "Yes."
Buck was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on
appeal, and his state and federal habeas corpus petitions were denied. While
these proceedings were pending, the State of Texas confessed error in 6 other
cases where individuals had been sentenced to death in which Dr. Quijano had
been a witness and said that a defendant was more likely to be dangerous
because of his race. But it did not do so in Buck's case because it was Buck's
lawyer who had called Dr. Quijano as a witness.
Buck's 3rd habeas corpus petition in federal court, which was accompanied by a
motion to set aside the prior decision pursuant to 60(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on
his lawyer calling Dr. Quijano as a witness. The district court denied the
petition, concluding that Buck could not show that he was prejudiced because
the jury likely would have sentenced him to death even without Dr. Quijano's
testimony.
Buck sought to appeal the denial of his habeas corpus petition to the New
Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which under federal law
requires a certificate of appealability. This requires "a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right." The 5th Circuit denied a certificate
of appealability, concluding that Buck's case was "not extraordinary at all in
the habeas context."
Supreme Court Reverses
The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, reversed the 5th Circuit. Chief Justice
John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion (PDF) for the court; only Justices
Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito dissented.
The 1st issue before the court was whether the federal court of appeals erred
in not granting a certificate of appealability. As the court noted, the
standard for this was articulated in Miller-El v. Cockrell (2003). The key
question in granting a certificate of appealability is whether "jurists of
reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." This threshold question
should be decided without "full consideration of the factual or legal bases
adduced in support of the claims." Notably the court in Miller-El said: "When a
court of appeals sidesteps [the COA] process by first deciding the merits of an
appeal, and then justifying its denial of a COA based on its adjudication of
the actual merits, it is in essence deciding an appeal without jurisdiction."
The court concluded that in denying Buck a certificate of appealability, the
5th Circuit had improperly decided the merits of his claim. Chief Justice
Roberts explained that in asking whether Buck had shown "extraordinary
circumstances," the 5th Circuit focused on the wrong question. Roberts wrote:
"We reiterate what we have said before: "A 'court of appeals should limit its
examination [at the COA stage] to a threshold inquiry into the underlying merit
of [the] claims,' and ask 'only if the District Court's decision was
debatable.'"
2nd, the court found that there was ineffective assistance of counsel. The test
for ineffective assistance of counsel was articulated in Strickland v.
Washington (1984), which requires that a defendant who claims to have been
denied effective assistance must show both that counsel performed deficiently
and that counsel's deficient performance caused him prejudice.
As for the former, the court said it was clearly ineffective assistance of
counsel for the defense to call Dr. Quijano as a witness. The court wrote: "It
would be patently unconstitutional for a state to argue that a defendant is
liable to be a future danger because of his race. No competent defense attorney
would introduce such evidence about his own client."
As for the latter, the court concluded "it is reasonably probable -
notwithstanding the nature of Buck's crime and his behavior in its aftermath -
that the proceeding would have ended differently had counsel rendered competent
representation." The court powerfully stated: "But when a jury hears expert
testimony that expressly makes a defendant's race directly pertinent on the
question of life or death, the impact of that evidence cannot be measured
simply by how much air time it received at trial or how many pages it occupies
in the record. Some toxins can be deadly in small doses." Importance
The case is significant in many ways. First, the court reaffirms that in
deciding whether to grant a certificate of appealability, a court should not
make a determination on the merits, but instead focus on whether the issue is
reasonably debatable. Second, the court's finding of ineffective assistance of
counsel is notable because there are relatively few cases in which the court
has found that this exacting standard has been met. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, the court was emphatic that "it is inappropriate to allow race to
be considered as a factor in our criminal justice system." If the court truly
follows this, it could have an effect in so many areas where race undoubtedly
greatly influences the administration of justice for those accused of crimes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(source: Erwin Chemerinsky is Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and
Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law at the University of California,
Irvine School of Law. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice,
civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He's the author of
7 books, including The Case Against the Supreme Court (Viking, 2014)----ABA
Journal)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
