- Educational Curricula
- Executions Database
- Law Review
- New Voices
- Public Opinion
- Related Web Sites
- State by State Database
- State Information
- Student Resources
- Testimony, Resolutions, Statements & Speeches
- Weekly Newsletter
- Death Penalty Quiz
- More Resources
Public support for the death penalty fell by 7 percentage points in the last year, with fewer than half of Americans (49%) now saying they support the death penalty, according to a national Pew Research Center poll released on September 29. The poll marks the first time in 45 years that support for capital punishment polled below 50%, when a Gallup poll in released in November 1971 also reported that 49% of Americans supported the death penalty. Opposition to capital punishment reached a record high since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia striking down existing death penalty statutes. 42% of respondents told Pew that they oppose capital punishment, the most since a May 1966 Gallup poll reported 47% of Americans against the death penalty. The poll results reflect the continuation—and perhaps acceleration—of a 20-year trend of decreasing support for, and increasing opposition to, capital punishment. Support for the death penalty declined across every demographic group in the past year, with the largest decline coming among Independents (13 percentage points). Majorities of Blacks (63%), Hispanics (50%), 18-29 year-olds (51%), college graduates (51%), Democrats (58%), and people with no religious affiliation (50%) now oppose the death penalty and—while comprising less than a majority—more women, Independents, and Catholics say they oppose the death penalty than support it. While 72% of Republicans say they favor capital punishment, support for the death penalty among Republicans dropped 5 points in the past year. Since 2011, support for the death penalty has declined among every demographic group, with overall support falling by 13 points. The polls appear to be reflecting generational changes as well. 59% of those aged 18-29 said they supported the death penalty in 2011. In 2015, support among the young had fallen to 51%, and support plummeted another 9 percentage points to 42% this year. (Click image to enlarge.)
The Orange County, California Crime Lab has been accused of doctoring its testimony about DNA evidence to favor the prosecution, after a senior forensic analyst offered conflicting conclusions that bolstered the prosecution in two separate murder cases. A motion filed on September 23 by the Organge County Public Defender's office says prosecutor Kevin Haskins (now a judge) presented testimony from Senior Forensic Scientist Mary Hong in the 2008 capital murder prosecution of Lynn Dean Johnson claiming that the recovery of low quantities of semen from the victim's body meant that the DNA had been deposited "zero to 24 hours" before it was collected by police. The motion says Hong subsequently testified in the murder trial of Wendell Patrick Lemond in 2009, in response to questioning by deputy district attorney Howard Gundy, that low quantities of semen meant that intercourse had occurred at least 24 hours before collection. The testimony in Johnson's case was critical in persuading the jury that the victim—who had multiple partners in the weeks before her death—had sexual contact with Johnson near the time of the murder. In Lemond's case, however, the changed testimony persuaded jurors that an alternate suspect who had been identified as the source of the semen could not have had sex with the victim around the time of the murder. The murders occurred in 1985, but the trials took place two decades later after Hong reopened forensic probes into the cases. Hong's testimony in Johnson contradicted the conclusions reached by criminalist Daniel Gammie when he prepared the original reports in ther cases in 1985. At that time, Gammie indicated in both cases that the sperm had been deposited at least 24 hours before collection. At Johnson's trial, Gammie changed his stance to fit the prosecution's theory and testified that now he would "be very cautious making a statement" like the one in his 1985 report. Having recanted his 1985 conclusions in Johnson's case, prosecutors could not risk presenting him as a witness in Lemond's case. Instead, Gundy presented Hong, but did not tell the jury about her contradictory testimony in the Johnson trial. Sanders' court filing argued that Gammie and Hong's testimony had been tailored to “fit perfectly for the prosecution" in Johnson’s case and that Hong's testimony in Lemond's case was "wholly irreconcilable with the testimony in Johnson. ...She clearly had studied Gammie’s report and analysis and knew that Gammie’s testimony in Johnson and her own—in the hands of defense counsel—would have eviscerated her credibility in Lemond and all of the other cases she has touched throughout the course of her career." The revelation comes amid a widespread prosecutorial misconduct scandal in Orange County, in which a special committee recently cited a "failure of leadership" and "win-at-all-costs mentality" as factors that led to the misuse of jailhouse informants, withholding of evidence, and other misconduct.
Some proponents of the death penalty—including the late Justice Antonin Scalia and the 2016 Republican Party platform—have asserted that the Supreme Court cannot declare the death penalty unconstitutional because the Framers included reference to the punishment in the text of the Fifth Amendment. An article by Duke Law School Professor Joseph Blocher, published in the Northwestern University Law Review, critically analyzes that argument and concludes that the Fifth Amendment's acknowledgment of the death penalty as an acceptable practice in the 1700s does not foreclose judicial review of the constitutionality of the practice under the Eighth Amendment or any other constitutional amendment. This, Blocher says, is because the Fifth Amendment contains restrictions on the exercise of government power, rather than affirmatively granting the government any constitutional power. The Fifth Amendment, Blocher writes, "contains three prohibitions on the use of capital punishment." The Grand Jury Clause prohibits the government from bringing charges against a person "for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits twice placing any person "in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense. The Due Process Clause prohibits depriving any person "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." No one would argue that the mention of deprivation of limb in the Double Jeopardy Clause constitutionally legitimizes amputation as a criminal punishment. And by imposing constitutional limits on government conduct in attempting to take a defendant's life, Blocher says "there is no reason to suppose that [the Fifth Amendment] somehow nullifies other constitutional prohibitions—most importantly, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment." He notes that the Ninth Amendment reinforces this reading, "The Ninth Amendment indicates that the entire Bill of Rights—let alone any particular provision of it—cannot be read as an exclusive list. ...Compliance with the Fifth Amendment does not provide the death penalty a safe harbor against constitutional challenges, including those derived from the Eighth Amendment." Blocher concludes that to the extent reasons may exist not to abolish the death penalty, "the Fifth Amendment is not one of them."
Missouri Execution Pharmacy Calls Sale of Drugs to State Political Speech, Claims First Amendment Right to SecrecyPosted: September 27, 2016
A pharmacy that has received more than $125,000 in cash payments from Missouri for providing lethal injection drugs that the state has used in 16 executions has argued in a court filing that its identity should remain secret, claiming that selling execution drugs to the state's Department of Corrections is political speech protected by the First Amendment. The supplier's information was requested in a subpoena by Mississippi death row inmates who are challenging that state's execution protocol, and seeking information about other state practices as part of their lawsuit. The pharmacy, which is identified in court documents as "M7," filed a motion stating that its "decision to provide lethal chemicals to the Department was based on M7’s political views on the death penalty, and not based on economic reasons. ...The fact that M7’s expression of political views involves a commercial transaction does not diminish M7’s First Amendment rights." BuzzFeed News reports that Missouri paid the pharmacy $7,178.88 for two vials of pentobarbital per execution, which it describes as well above market value, amid concerns that the cash payments may have violated federal tax laws. Analyzing M7's claim, Bloomberg News columnist Noah Feldman described the pharmacy's constitutional argument as "deeply flawed." Feldman writes that "there’s an enormous difference between speaking and acting—particularly when that action is a for-profit commercial transaction with the government. ... [I]n a democracy, it’s crucially important for the government to disclose its vendors, both to avoid corruption and to promote transparency." M7 asserted in its filing that releasing its identity could subject the pharmacy to harassment and boycotts, relying on statements from a security consultant, Lawrence Cunningham, whose previous statements about the potential threats to execution drug suppliers have been exposed as unsupported or exaggerated. "The M7 situation helps demonstrate why it’s so dangerous to treat corporations as though they have fundamental constitutional rights while doing business," Feldman writes. "Those basic rights are designed to protect individuals against government power. They aren’t supposed to be used to exempt businesses from regulation or publicity whenever it’s convenient for them."
As voters get set to cast ballots on death penalty questions in California, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, U.S. death row exonerees from across the country have been scouring those states in an effort to inform the public of the risks of wrongful executions. On September 19, 17 of the nation's 156 death-row exonerees appeared at a California press conference advocating approval of Proposition 62, which would replace the death penalty with life without parole plus restitution, and defeat of Proposition 66, which seeks to place limits on the capital appeals process. Many, including California exoneree Shujaa Graham (pictured), Florida exoneree Juan Melendez, Arizona exonerees Ray Krone and Debra Milke, and Louisiana exoneree Damon Thibodeaux urged a no vote on Prop. 66, arguing that they would have been executed without the chance to prove their innocence if a measure like it had been effect when they were sentenced to death. A few days earlier, Illinois exoneree Randy Steidl and Ohio exoneree Kwame Ajamu spoke to the Oklahoma Republican Liberty Caucus, a group described by its chairman, Logan County Commissioner Marven Goodman, as "disenfranchised conservatives" who, as a result of their distrust of government regulation are questioning the death penalty. Steidl and Ajamu told the caucus about their wrongful capital convictions and raised concerns about the effects of limitations on judicial review under Oklahoma ballot question 776, which would bar Oklahoma courts from ruling that the imposition of the death penalty constituted cruel or unusual punishment or "contravene[d] any provision of the Oklahoma Constitution." Steidl, who was wrongfully convicted in Illinois in 1987 and exonerated in 2004, stressed the importance of appellate review in securing his exoneration: "Without the judicial review I finally got, I’d be dead today or at least be languishing in prison," he said. "I really believe that Oklahoma’s track record so far is not very pretty when you’ve got 10 people that’s been exonerated." And in Nebraska, Maryland's Kirk Bloodsworth, the first former death row prisoner to be exonerated by DNA, taped an ad on behalf of Retain A Just Nebraska, the advocacy committee opposing a voter referendum that could overturn the state legislature's repeal of Nebraska's death penalty. In the ad, Bloodsworth says: "You could free a man from prison, but you cannot free him from the grave. You can not un-execute someone. ... If it can happen to an honorably discharged marine with no criminal record or criminal history, it could happen to anybody in America.”
OUTLIER COUNTIES: Legacy of Racism Persists in Caddo Parish, Which Had Nation's Second-Highest Number of LynchingsPosted: September 23, 2016
The death-sentencing rate per homicide in Caddo Parish, Louisiana was nearly 8 times greater between 2006 and 2015 than the rest of the state, making a parish with only 5% of Louisiana's population responsible for 38% of the death sentences imposed statewide. Caddo currently has more people on death row than any other parish in the state. Known as "Bloody Caddo," the parish had the second highest number of lynchings of any county in the nation. The Confederate flag flew in front of the steps to the courthouse until 2011 (pictured), where a monument to the Confederacy still stands. Inside that courthouse, 80% of defendants sentenced to death between 2010 and 2015 were Black, and no White person has ever been executed for killing a Black person in Caddo Parish. Caddo received national attention in 2015 when Acting District Attorney Dale Cox said he believed the state needed to "kill more people." Cox was personally responsible for one-third of the death sentences in Louisiana from 2010 to 2015. His controversial statements were in response to questions about the exoneration of Glenn Ford, a Black man convicted by an all-White jury, who spent 30 years on death row for a crime he did not commit. Ford's case illustrated many of the factors that have contributed to the overproduction of death sentences in Caddo Parish: racial bias in jury selection and the application of death sentences, inadequate representation, and official misconduct. A 2015 study by Reprieve Australia found that prosecutors used peremptory strikes against 46% of Black jurors, but only 15% of other jurors. One Black prospective juror was removed from a jury pool in 2009 for objecting to the presence of the Confederate flag in front of the courthouse. Like Ford, who was represented by two appointed attorneys who had never represented a criminal defendant at trial, most Caddo Parish defendants have not received adequate representation. In the last decade, 75% of people sentenced to death in Caddo Parish were represented by at least one lawyer who does not meet recently-imposed standards for capital attorneys. Official misconduct, like the false police testimony in Ford's trial, has also contributed to the high number of death sentences in Caddo. In 2014, Dale Cox wrote a memo regarding the capital trial of Rodricus Crawford in which he stated that Crawford, "deserves as much physical suffering as it is humanly possible to endure before he dies." Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death for allegedly killing his infant son, despite medical evidence that the child actually died of pneumonia. Caddo prosecutors have a history of seeking death against the most vulnerable Black defendants: Lamondre Tucker and Laderrick Campbell were 18 years old at the time of their offenses and both had IQs in the intellectually disabled range; Corey Williams, who was 16 and removed from death row after being found to be intellectually disabled, is still serving a life sentence despite powerful evidence that his confession was coerced and that others committed the offense for which he was condemned. In November 2015, Caddo Parish elected its first Black District Attorney, James E. Stewart, Sr., who pledged, "to bring professionalism and ethics back to the district attorney’s office."
Field Poll: California Death Penalty Repeal Leads Among Likely Voters as Majority Say They Prefer Life Without ParolePosted: September 22, 2016
A poll of likely California voters conducted jointly by The Field Poll and the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley has found continuing erosion of support for the death penalty in the state and near-majority support for Proposition 62, a ballot question to replace the state's death penalty with a system of life imprisonment without parole, plus restitution. The poll found significant voter confusion about a rival ballot measure, Proposition 66, that claims to "reform" the state's death penalty by purportedly speeding up capital appeals. A plurality of voters said they are undecided about that ballot question. Although support for both propositions led opposition, neither commanded a majority. 48% of likely voters say they plan to vote yes on Prop. 62, with 37% planning to vote no and 15% undecided. 35% say they plan on voting yes on Prop. 66, with 23% currently opposing, but 42% undecided. (Click image to enlarge.) The poll presented likely voters with the summaries of each initiative that will appear on the November ballot. It found that support for repeal was strongest among Democrats (63%), liberals (71%), voters under 30 (55%), and voters with no religious preference (59%). Latinos were nearly evenly divided and constituted the only racial or ethnic group in which more voters said they opposed Prop. 62 (43%) than supported it (42%). Nearly one-third of African-American voters (32%) reported that they were undecided. A plurality of most demographic groups was undecided about Prop. 66, but support for the measure was highest among Republicans (42%), conservatives (45%), and Protestants (41%). The poll also asked voters whether they prefer the death penalty or life without parole for those convicted of first degree murder. A 10-percentage-point majority (55%-45%) said they prefer life without parole, continuing a trend of increased support for alternatives to the death penalty since the Field Poll first asked the question in 2009. At that time, a plurality (44%) prefered the death penalty. Support for Prop. 62 is polling 6 percentage points higher than it did for Proposition 34, the ballot initiative to repeal the death penalty that narrowly failed in 2012, at the same time in the election cycle. A Field Poll of likely voters in September 2012 showed 42% in favor of the repeal initiative, 45% opposed, and 13% undecided. Prop. 34 ultimately garnered 48% of the vote. The poll of 942 likely voters was conducted online by YouGov September 7-13, 2016 and released on September 22.
Semon Frank Thompson (pictured), a former superintendent at the Oregon State Penitentiary, oversaw both of the executions carried out under Oregon's death penalty statute. He now believes that "capital punishment is a failed policy." In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Thompson—who used to support the death penalty—explains how conducting executions changed his mind. Prior to serving as prison superintendent, Thompson had felt that "justice had been served" when a defendant who had been convicted of killing one of Thompson's law enforcement colleagues was executed. Shortly afterwards, when he was responsible for carrying out the executions of Douglas Franklin Wright and Harry Charles Moore, "the fact that I was now to be personally involved in their executions forced me into a deeper reckoning with my feelings about capital punishment." By the time the executions took place, Thompson says he had come to "believe that capital punishment was a dismal failure as a policy," but he participated because he was expected to do his job. He saw the toll the executions took on staff members who participated: "After each execution, I had staff members who decided they did not want to be asked to serve in that capacity again. Others quietly sought employment elsewhere. A few told me they were having trouble sleeping, and I worried they would develop post-traumatic stress disorder if they had to go through it another time.... The effects can lead to all the places you’d expect: drug use, alcohol abuse, depression and suicide." Thompson now supports Oregon's moratorium on executions and urges the nation to reconsider capital punishment altogether. He has concluded that "America should no longer accept the myth that capital punishment plays any constructive role in our criminal justice system. It will be hard to bring an end to the death penalty, but we will be a healthier society as a result."
A September 20 report by the Texas Defender Service says that Texas "has failed to ensure effective counsel" for appellants in capital cases and that the state's system of reviewing death penalty cases on direct appeal is "in dire need of reform." The report, titled Lethally Deficient, reviewed all 84 capital direct appeals decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) from 2009 to 2015 and identified numerous "persistent deficits in the provision of counsel on direct appeal in death penalty cases." Among those problems, the report found that the Texas capital defense system "fails to meaningfully evaluate attorney qualifications" before assigning a lawyer to handle a capital appeal; "understaffs the defense" by appointing only one lawyer—frequently a solo practitioner—to the case; improperly "subjects defense counsel to political pressures"; provides inconsistent and often inadequate resources and compensation; and fails to control attorney workload to ensure that appointed lawyers have time to provide appropriate representation. The report said that, these "fundamental flaws ... led to multiple instances" in which appeal lawyers recycled boilerplate arguments relying on outdated legal authority that had already been rejected in other cases, failed to meet or consult with their clients before filing briefs, failed to file replies to prosecutors' briefs, and failed to seek review of the case by the U.S. Supreme Court. During the period examined, the CCA upheld every capital conviction and more than 94% of all death sentences, and overturned just three death verdicts. Looking at 1,060 capital direct appeal decisions between 2005 and 2015 by courts in the other 30 death penalty states, the study found that Texas's reversal rate was 2.8 times lower than the national average. “The tragedy of direct appeals in Texas capital cases is not simply that lawyers underperform, often pasting together briefs, skipping oral argument, or declining to do other basic tasks such as filing reply briefs. It is that everyone knows that this is happening, from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on down. It is an embarrassment to the legal profession and a testament to the low expectations in Texas surrounding defense representation in capital cases,” said Jordan Steiker, Co-Director of the Capital Punishment Center at The University of Texas School of Law. The Texas Defender Service offers three major reform recommendations, suggesting that Texas should 1) "establish a statewide capital appellate defender office," 2) "create a statewide appointment system with effective caseload controls and uniform attorney compensation," and 3) "appoint two lawyers to represent death-sentenced defendants on direct appeal." Kathryn Kase, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, said "Texas has made enormous strides in its effort to reform indigent legal services in general, and in capital indigent representation, since 2001." These new measures, she said "are the necessary next steps in delivering a promise that the first Texas Code of Criminal Procedure laid out in 1857, promising adequate legal assistance to indigents facing the mighty powers of the state."
Newspaper editorial boards in California are overwhelmingly supporting a November ballot initiative to abolish the state's death penalty and replace it with life without parole plus restitution, and are uniformly rejecting an opposing initiative that purports to speed up the appeals process. At least eight California newspapers have published editorials supporting Proposition 62 and opposing Proposition 66, and Ballotpedia reports that it is aware of no editorial boards that have supported Proposition 66. A Los Angeles Times editorial characterizes the death penalty as "both immoral and inhumane," adding, "[e]ven those who do not object to capital punishment on principle ought to support abolition because of the system’s inefficiency, exorbitant costs and long delays. Proponents of Proposition 66 say they can speed up the process and make the death penalty work, but there are serious doubts that their proposal would achieve the kind of fast-tracking they promise, and critics argue persuasively that the system might become even more expensive." The San Francisco Chronicle writes that "all sides agree [California's death penalty] has produced enormous legal bills, no semblance of deterrence to would-be murderers and too little justice to victims’ loved ones over the past four decades." It says Prop. 62 "offers a straightforward and certain solution," while criticizing Prop. 66 as "a highly complex, probably very expensive and constitutionally questionable scheme for streamlining the appeals process." Many of the editorials are particularly critical of Prop. 66's proposal to conscript appellate lawyers to represent death row inmates. The (Santa Rosa) Press Democrat's critique is representative: "Rather than funding an expansion of the state public defender’s office, which handles almost all death penalty appeals, Proposition 66 would require all attorneys who practice in California appellate courts, regardless of specialty and training, to accept judicial appointments to capital cases. Claims of inattentive and incompetent counsel already are common in death penalty appeals, and conscripting lawyers would only invite more such challenges." The Bakersfield Californian, which offered no opinion on Prop. 34, California's prior ballot initiative to abolish the death penalty, has also weighed in on the death penalty this year, calling for an end to the state's "costly, toothless death penalty." Other newspapers urging voters to vote yes on Prop. 62 and no on Prop. 66 included Monterey Herald, the Bay Area News Group (Mercury News and East Bay Times), and the Santa Clarita Valley Signal.