New Mexico abolished the death penalty for future offenses in 2009. However, two people still face execution, including Timothy Allen (pictured), who has been on death row for nearly 17 years. His superficial trial and woefully inadequate representation reveal systemic flaws in the state's application of capital punishment. The lead attorney in Allen's trial had never tried a death penalty case before, and failed to research Allen's psychiatric history. Later investigation revealed that Allen had been diagnosed with and treated for schizophrenia and experienced auditory hallucinations. According to one psychiatric report, Allen was psychotic at the time of the murder for which he was sentenced to death, and committed the crime “while under the influence of command hallucinations, not willfully.” No witnesses were called to testify on Allen's behalf during the sentencing phase of his trial. The supervising attorney who assigned the inexperienced attorney to the case was himself subject to drug testing by a state disciplinary board and was of little help in the case. Allen's current attorneys argue that the case would be tried very differently today and that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
DPIC is pleased to announce the completion of our State Information Pagesfor all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These state profiles provide historical and current information on the death penalty for each state, including famous cases, past legislative actions, and links to key organizations and state officials. For frequently updated information, such as execution totals, the size of death row, or the number of exonerations, see our State-by-State Database. Readers are encouraged to send additional information, pictures, and links to organizations in their state. You can reach the State Information Pages through the "State by State" button at the top of every page on our website or under the "Resources" tab in our main menu.
DPIC has updated its Executions Per Death Death Sentence page to reflect data through 2010. This page lists states in order of the percentage of death sentences resulting in an execution since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. If every death sentence resulted in an execution, the state would be at 100%, or a rate of 1.00. Using this ratio of executions per death sentence, the first five states are Virginia (.725), Texas (.498), Utah (.368), Missouri (.347), and Delaware (.311). Of those states that have carried out at least one execution, the five states with the lowest rate of execution are Pennsylvania (.008), California (.015), Idaho (.025), Oregon (.028), and Tennessee (.035). Four states with the death penalty during this time period had no executions: Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York. The latter two have abandoned the death penalty. Nationally, about 15% of death sentences have resulted in an execution (a rate of .150). Another measure of state execution rates is executions per capita (population). Under this standard, Oklahoma and Texas are the leading states.
In a potentially far reaching ruling, a trial judge in New Mexico has barred the state from seeking the death penalty because the legislature has failed to provide adequate funding for defense representation. The state's Attorney General, Gary King, agreed that the capital prosecution cannot go forward. After finding that funding for the defense was insufficient and raised constitutional problems, King wrote, "The state now confesses the motion to dismiss filed herein and cannot in good faith under these circumstances oppose the dismissal of the death penalty in these cases." State District Judge Neil Candelaria took the death penalty off the table for Reis Lopez and Robert Young, two inmates accused of killing a prison guard, because no money was appropriated for death penalty indigent defense during New Mexico’s 2008 Legislative Session, despite a unanimous warning from the state Supreme Court. The legislative session ended in February.
Ruling in a pre-trial matter in New Mexico, Judge Timothy Garcia of Santa Fe County's First Judicial District Court held the state's death penalty law to be unconstitutional based on a study by the Capital Jury Project. The Project's research in 14 states had found that jurors often do not follow the law in making their sentencing decision. In particular, the judge found that the jurors' propensity toward making their sentencing decision during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial was "an arbitrary and capricious violation of the United States Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution."
The judge said that he would allow the death penalty trial to go ahead provided separate juries were selected for the guilt-innocence phase and for the sentencing phase, even though that change was not provided for under New Mexico law. The state elected to forgo seeking the death penalty entirely, thereby putting off a legal confrontation on this issue.
Although the United States is considered a death penalty country, executions are rare or non-existent in much of the nation. 26 of 53 jurisdictions in the U.S. (50 states, the District of Columbia, the Federal Government, and the Military) either do not have the death penalty or have not carried out an execution in at least 10 years. Most of those have not carried out an execution since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.
New Mexico abolished the death penalty for future offenses in 2009. However, two people still face execution, including Timothy Allen (pictured), who has been on death row for nearly 17 years. His superficial trial and woefully inadequate representation reveal systemic flaws in the state's application of capital punishment. The lead attorney in Allen's trial had never tried a death penalty case before, and failed to research Allen's psychiatric history. Later investigation revealed that Allen had been diagnosed with and treated for schizophrenia and experienced auditory hallucinations. According to one psychiatric report, Allen was psychotic at the time of the murder for which he was sentenced to death, and committed the crime “while under the influence of command hallucinations, not willfully.” No witnesses were called to testify on Allen's behalf during the sentencing phase of his trial. The supervising attorney who assigned the inexperienced attorney to the case was himself subject to drug testing by a state disciplinary board and was of little help in the case. Allen's current attorneys argue that the case would be tried very differently today and that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
DPIC is pleased to announce the completion of our 