racial disparity
Death penalty constitutionality hearings continue
Mar 26th
Missed in my migration this weekend was Friday’s testimony in the death penalty constitutionality hearing. Waterbury State’s Attorney Connelly testified about his hands-on approach in deciding whether to pursue the death penalty. Waterbury has prosecuted five of the seven current death row inmates.
While Connelly described, step-by-step, his decision-making process, other prosecutors said they simply followed the guidelines established in the Connecticut General Statutes.The question of a prosecutor’s discretion appeared pivotal.
Connelly said he does not have a choice not to pursue a capital case. “That’s a misuse of discretion. … If you have the evidence and you don’t seek it, I think a state’s attorney would be abusing that discretion.”
In describing his approach, Connelly said, “If I only felt I could find probable cause I would not charge. I’d have to be convinced of a conviction. If I felt I could sustain a conviction for a capital felony I would charge.”
The hearings resume on April 12.
Previous coverage:
- Death penalty constitutionality hearing under way.
- State prosecutors have to testify at death penalty hearing.
Technorati Tags: connecticut, death penalty
Death Penalty Constitutionality hearing under way
Feb 24th
A hearing on the Constitutionality of the state’s death penalty is underway as five top prosecutors testified last week. Attorneys for accused Jesse Campbell III, who faces the death penalty, are claiming that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is applied in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner throughout the state.
Prosecutors testified that they follow the law and the prosecutor’s code of ethics when deciding whether to pursue the death penalty. However, they also testified that there was no written standard or guideline regarding the matter.
Kevin Kane, the state’s top law enforcement officer, testified first, followed by state’s attorneys from the Windham, Middlesex, New Britain and Ansonia/Milford judicial districts.Kane gave the most detailed answers. He said in his current position, as supervisor of all state’s attorneys in Connecticut, and during his more than a decade as New London state’s attorney, he used an “operating assumption” that if assistants in his office planned to charge a defendant with capital felony, they would discuss the matter with him first.
“Because of the nature of the case, I expect the assistants to talk to me. I expect assistants to have common sense in cases that would have a significant relevance or impact,” Kane said.
Several other prosecutors are expected to testify when the hearing resumes on March 23. Stay tuned.
Previous coverage of this hearing:
Death penalty complex litigation stagnant
May 6th
Forgotten in the circus of the Michael Ross execution is the complex litigation pending before Justice Callahan, which challenges Connecticut’s Death Penalty scheme. The litigation alleges that the death penalty, as applied in CT, is unconstitutionally biased on racial and geographic grounds. The Courant reports that Superior Court Judge George Levine has been assigned to assist Justice Callahan, who asked to be relieved because of health issues.
Waterbury SA John Connolly comments
public defenders have conducted an exhaustive study of bias in capital cases, but have not released the results of that study. "If the study shows what they claim it would show, we would have
seen this study years ago. The reason we haven’t heard about the
conclusions is because it did not show what they wanted it to show".
I wish I could claim to know much about the results of this study – but I don’t. Even if I did, I’m sure this is one thing I couldn’t cover on this blawg. But, methinks Atty. Connolly doth protest too much. After all, 6 out of 8 death row inmates are from Waterbury.
This was last brought up by Justice Norcott in his dissent [pdf] to the January decision regarding an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross as Next Friend. Justice Norcott wrote,
‘‘to permit an execution to proceed without the benefit of the completion of that study and a ruling thereon amounts to an informal and premature judicial imprimatur on the fairness of the death penalty process.
Moreover, should the habeas court subsequently conclude that our entire death penalty system is fundamentally flawed as discriminatory on the basis of race after the defendant has been executed, our citizens’ confidence in this court and the rest of the judicial branch as a bastion of civil rights might suffer irreparable harm.’’
I’m getting antsy waiting for the Ross decision today.
recent comments