Posts tagged dna
MA seeks to reinstate death penalty
Apr 30th
UPDATE: Prof. Berman correctly points out that I have neglected to discuss the economic concerns surrounding the re-instatement of the death penalty in MA. Certainly, there are many studies [pdf] out there that analyze and discuss the cost of imposing the death penalty, which I won’t rehash here. Prof. Berman does make an interesting observation:
Consider also the fact that, according to statistics I found on the
web, alomst twice as many people are killed in Massachusetts by drunk drivers than by murderers, and the data
on rape and other violent crimes suggest that Romney’s bill may
distract from more pressing criminal justice issues in Massachusetts.
This is certainly a compelling economic argument against the death penalty. Here’s what stood out to me – In CT, in 2000, there were 98 murders, 678 forcible rapes, 3832 robberies and 6450 aggravated assaults. In CT, as of 2002, it cost the PD’s office an average of $380,000 per case for the 7 men on death row, totalling $2,659,921. By comparision, those sentenced to life after being charged with the death penalty cost an average of $202,365, totalling $2,630,745. Those who weren’t charged with the death penalty, but were sentenced to life after a trial cost an average of $79,777. Full report of the CT Commission on the Death Penalty here. The 2003-2004 cost of providing capital defense in CT was $1,959,523. That’s a lot of money that could be saved.
Original Post: Thanks to Injustice Anywhere, I just read this NYT article about MA seeking to reinstate the death penalty (well, it’s mostly the Governor). Gov. Romney calls it, rather unabashedly, as foolproof as humanly possible. Here are a few of his proposed features:
- It would require that there be "conclusive scientific evidence," like DNA or fingerprints, to link a defendant to a crime.
- It would allow a death penalty to be imposed only if a sentencing jury
finds there is "no doubt" about a defendant’s guilt, a standard that is
stricter than "beyond a reasonable doubt." - It would restrict capital punishment to murders involving terrorism, prolonged torture, multiple killings or murder of someone involved in the criminal justice system.
- Defendants who had previously been convicted of first-degree murder or
were serving life sentences without parole would also be eligible. - Another unprecedented provision would give the defendant the option of
having two juries – one for the trial and one for the sentencing. - It also includes a requirement that defendants get at least two and
possibly three lawyers, that scientific evidence be examined by a
review board, that every death sentence be reviewed by the state’s
highest court, and that a special panel be set up to handle complaints.
Romney calls it a model for the entire nation. Heh. RIght off the bat, I see good things and bad things about this proposed legislation.
The Good:
The requirement that there be atleast two lawyers for a capital defendant. Everyone who follows capital litigation knows that there is a terrible need to skilled and experienced lawyers and that one lawyer simply cannot adequately represent a capital defendant. By mandating that there be two, perhaps three, the bill is providing for effective representation.
Also, at first glance, the requirement that there be two juries is interesting and has potential to be a good provision. When there is one jury, it is difficult to plead not guilty – go through a trial, present (usually) horrific evidence and get convicted – and then turn around at sentencing and provide mitigating circumstances to that same jury. Perhaps the requirement that the sentencing jury be new and look at the aggravating and mitigating factors with untainted eyes might provide a better process.
Finally, the DNA evidence. Over the years, the stories of those who have been exonerated based on DNA evidence is growing. To see a bill that has DNA evidence built in to the process that triggers the death penalty is uplifting. I’m not sure what the "review board" is that is supposed to review scientific evidence, or who it will be composed of, so I’m not going to comment on that.
The Questionable:
The requirement that death be found "beyond all doubt" instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. If my memory serves me correctly, Illinois has attempted to introduce similar legislation. I’d love to see it pass, but somehow I don’t think it will.
The Bad:
Finally, we come to the problem with this bill. Point 4. above. Defendants who have previously been convicted of first-degree murder and are serving life without parole would be eligible. Huh? Perhaps Gov. Romney should be reminded of a little clause called the Ex-Post Facto clause [Article I, Section 9]. Why would he even consider putting that in? Doesn’t he have lawyers working on this with him? Why wouldn’t they tell him?
Anyway, it certainly is an interesting bill. Let’s see where this goes. Also, Prof. Berman at SL & P has a roundup of other death penalty news in the country.
Did you have a public defender or a lawyer?
Mar 31st
So says State Senator Newton, during a public hearing held on January 31, 2005 on the Anti-Death Penalty Bill. The question was posed to Lawrence Adams, a man from Massachusetts, who spent 32 years in prison (roughly 9 of them on death row) before he was exonerated and released. He came to CT to testify against the death penalty. The transcript reads as follows:
SEN. NEWTON: Thank you. I want to thank you for coming to Connecticut to give your testimony. When was it that they found the DNA, after how many years?
LAWRENCE ADAMS: It wasn’t DNA. It was exculpatory evidence. It took 31 years.
SEN. NEWTON: Thirty-one years?
LAWRENCE ADAMS: Yes.
SEN. NEWTON: Did you have a public defender?
LAWRENCE ADAMS: Excuse me?
SEN. NEWTON: Did you have a public defender or a lawyer?
LAWRENCE ADAMS: In the beginning, I had a public defender.
[CHAIRMAN OF THE JUD. COMMITTEE] SEN. MCDONALD: All right. Senator, I really don’t even know how to address that.
SEN. NEWTON: The point I’m trying to get at, and you all laugh, but this is very serious, is that in some cases, it’s been proven that those who can afford attorneys have a better chance. I’m not saying anything bad about public defenders, but in some incidents, you know, cases have been proven.
If you have a high-price lawyer, you stay out of jail. You know, that is the point I was trying to get to, not to disparage anything about our public defenders throughout this country. When you have your own lawyer, it seems that he might be able to collect that evidence, as you said. You know, that was the only point that I was making.
LAWRENCE ADAMS: It has been my experience, right, that I would say that I was unique in the fact that my lawyer, Mr. John Battarac, did work that I don’t think anybody else could have done. I was fortunate to that extent.
SEN. MCDONALD: Thank you very much. I should just note for the record that actually the Chief Public Defender’s Office has probably the greatest breadth of information in history on the defense of capital cases than any other group of attorneys in the state. Are there other questions? Senator Handley followed by Senator Cappiello.
Then the hearing continues.
Amazing, just amazing. Not like we don’t get crap from our clients anyway, now we have a state Senator who doesn’t acknowledge that public defenders are lawyers. Not once did the Senator make the distinction in terms of public defenders as opposed to private attorneys. He kept referring to private attorneys simply as "attorneys".
In any event, if you have time time, read as much of the transcript as you can – it’s pretty powerful, moving stuff.
Anti-death penalty bill text
Mar 18th
On the House calendar for today is House Bill No. 6012 entitled "An Act Concerning Murder with Special Circumstances". This is the anti-death penalty legislation that received a 25-15 vote in the Judiciary Committee last week. The text of the bill is available here. The proposed bill itself is long and has many amendments, which I will explain briefly. The most important provisions of this bill are Sections 1 through 6. Section 1 provides
Notwithstanding any other provision of law including, but not limited to, subsections (t) and (u) of section 1-1, section 54-130a and section 54-194 of the general statutes, (1) the sentence of any person convicted of a capital felony and sentenced prior to the effective date of this section to a sentence of death in accordance with section 53a-46a of the general statutes in effect prior to the effective date of this section is commuted to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, as defined in section 53a-35b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, on the effective date of this section, and (2) the punishment or penalty for any person who (A) is convicted prior to, on or after the effective date of this section of a capital felony committed prior to the effective date of this section, and (B) is sentenced or resentenced on or after the effective date of this section, shall be a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, as defined in section 53a-35b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, if such offense was committed on or after October 1, 1985, and a sentence of life imprisonment, as defined in section 53a-35b of the general statutes, as amended by this act, if such offense was committed prior to October 1, 1985. For the purposes of this section, "capital felony" means a violation of section 53a-54b of the general statutes in effect prior to the effective date of this section.
What this section essentially states is that all sentences of death, imposed before, on or after the effective date of this statute shall be changed to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
Section 2 replaces the term capital felony with murder with special circumstances in CGS 53a-54b, which enumerates the crimes for which the death penalty is available. [Murder of a police officer and the like, murder during kidnapping, murder for hire, second murder by someone already convicted of murder, murder of two or more persons in the same act or same time, murder during sexual assault 1st and murder of someone under the age of 16].
Section 3 makes changes to CGS 53a-35a, which deals with terms of imprisonment and makes murder with special circumstances a Class A felony. It does not change general "murder", which is also a Class A felony with a term of 25-life.
Section 4 defines the term of imprisonment for someone convicted of murder with special circumstances.
Sec. 4. Section 53a-35b of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):
[A] For the purposes of this title and titles 51 and 54, (1) a sentence of [imprisonment for life shall mean] life imprisonment means a definite sentence of sixty years, [unless the] and (2) a sentence [is] of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, imposed pursuant to [subsection (g) of section 53a-46a, in which case the sentence shall be] subdivision (1) of section 53a-35a, as amended by this act, means imprisonment for the remainder of the defendant’s natural life without the possibility of parole, sentence reduction, temporary leave, furlough or any other kind of post-conviction conditional or absolute release.
The proposed legislation changes little except the term for felony murder and the penalty for such a crime.
This bill has 22 co-sponsors.
Please post your comments on this legislation below.
[Ed Note: The text in [] is deleted and the underlined text is added. Section 1 above is a brand new section to be added to the CGS.]
Commission to Study U.S. Prison Conditions
Mar 2nd
A privately organized commission yesterday began a year-long examination of prisons in the country. The goal of the commission is to recommend prison reforms from local to federal levels after holding at least four public hearings around the country.
Some key statistics that prompted this study:
- 1. More than 34,000 assaults were committed by prisoners against other inmates in a 12-month period covering parts of 1999 and 2000
2. The number of prisoner assaults against staff in that period was 27 percent higher than the previous 12 months
3. More than a million people were sexually assaulted in prisons over the past two decades
4. Eleven inmates died in restraint chairs in the 1990s
The 21-member commission includes psychiatrists, criminologists and law professors; a former U.S. attorney and Tennessee sheriff; a former death row inmate exonerated by DNA evidence; a former mayor of New Orleans; a senior California lawmaker; former FBI director William S. Sessions, and the head of the NAACP’s Washington office. It was organized by a New York group, the Vera Institute of Justice. Maybe a couple of attorneys in there wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.
While no one expects this commission to have any monumental impact on the state of prisons in the country, it is nevertheless heartening to see that someone is taking an interest and perhaps something will come of it, somday.
Link via TalkLeft.
Ross and the death penalty litigation
Feb 17th
When the Ross drama was in full swing a few weeks ago, one of the arguments raised for issuing a stay was the pending legislation in CT regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty. In one of my posts then, I briefly mentioned the pending consolidated litigation. The Day of New London does a wonderful job of explaining the litigation in much depth.
Four death row inmates have challenged the state’s death penalty, arguing that it is racially biased and therefore unconstitutional.
Sedrick Cobb, Robert Breton Sr., Daniel Webb and Richard Reynolds are alleging that the race of the victim is a key factor in whether or not his or her killer gets the death penalty. They also are alleging that a disproportionate number of black defendants are convicted of capital felonies.
Instead of hearing each of those claims as separate cases, the state Supreme Court in December 2002 appointed former Chief Justice Robert Callahan to serve as a special master to consolidate and manage the litigation of that question.
Callahan said this week that the five cases are in various stages of appeal and probably will not be brought together for at least another six months.
A legislative panel raised the issue in December 2002, pointing out that six of the seven inmates then on death row were there for killing white people. The seventh inmate’s victim was Hispanic.
In filings with the court, Cobb introduced data showing that since 1973, only 11 of the 74 capital felony cases prosecuted in the state involved the murder of a black victim. Capital felony is the only charge that can lead to the death penalty. Life in prison is an alternative sentence for a conviction.
Also:
• Of the 18 capital prosecutions of murder committed during the course of a kidnapping, none involved a black victim.
• Of the 12 capital prosecutions for murder committed in the course of a sexual assault, only one involved a black victim.
• Of the 28 cases in which the defendant was convicted of a capital felony, only four involved black victims.
Dan Ross argued last month in his petition that the state should not execute anyone until that question has been resolved.
The state Supreme Court dismissed that argument, along with arguments that Michael Ross is not competent to choose to drop any further appeals.
But three of the seven justices dissented, asking how an execution could occur if the very constitutionality of Connecticut’s death penalty had been challenged.
You can read the dissent here and Justice Norcott’s lengthy dissent here. (Both require pdf.)
The question here isn’t whether Michael Ross can withdraw or exclude himself from this pending litigation. The key question, really the only question, is whether the State can permit Michael Ross to withdraw or exclude himself. For if he is allowed to opt out and is executed as per his wishes and then Justice Callahan rules the death penalty unconstitutional, there is no remedy, no reparation to Michael Ross. So while this litigation is ongoing, should he not be permitted to opt out and volunteer to die?
Thoughts anyone?
recent comments