The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected an appeal in the case of Texas death row inmate Duane Buck, who argued that his trial was tainted by ineffective representation and racial bias when Buck’s own mental health expert testified that he could be a future danger to society because he is black. Dr. Walter Quijano, a clinical psychologist, testified in the sentencing phase of Buck's case on the issue of future dangerousness. The prosecutor asked Quijano, "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 the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons, is that correct?" Quijano answered, "Yes." Buck, who is black, was sentenced to death. Buck's case was one of six capital cases identified in 2000 as tainted by Quijano's testimony. The other five have had new sentencing hearings, but Buck has not. Buck presented 11 arguments in his appeal, but the court said, "Jurists of reason would not debate that Buck has failed to show extraordinary circumstances justifying relief." Attorneys for Buck said, "This decision can only deepen the growing skepticism of the fairness of the criminal justice system. No competent capital defense attorney would invite the sentencing jury to make a life-or-death decision based on racial fears and stereotypes and no court should enforce a judgment in which race was explicitly proffered as the basis for a death sentence."
The Kansas Federation of College Republicans unanimously adopted a resolution calling for repeal of the death penalty in their state. “More young conservatives like myself recognize that our broken and fallible system of capital punishment in no way matches up with our conservative values,” said Dalton Glasscock, a Wichita State University student and chairman of the federation. Citing pro-life views and fiscal responsibility, the group urged Kansas legislators to repeal the state's death penalty. Eric Pahls, president of Kansas University College Republicans, said, "I think if, as Republicans, we call ourselves pro-life, that is from birth through natural death, not from birth until we decide your life is less important or less valuable." Glasscock and Pahls think there is a generational shift in views about the death penalty among young Republicans. A recent Pew Research Center poll indicated that death penalty support is weakest among younger Americans, among whom it has dropped by 8 percentage points since 2011. The federation joins the Republican Liberty Caucus of Kansas, who last year announced support for repeal of capital punishment. The Kansas Republican Party has dropped death penalty support from its platform, and now takes a neutral stance on the issue. Kansas has not carried out any executions since it reinstated the death penalty in 1994.
In an op-ed for Newsweek, Stanford Law Professor John Donohue argues that there is "not the slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide" and presents data to show that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Comparisons between neighboring jurisdictions show no effect of capital punishment: "Whether one compares the similar movements of homicide in Canada and the U.S., when only the latter restored the death penalty, or in American states that have abolished it versus those that retain it, or in Hong Kong and Singapore (the first abolishing the death penalty in the mid-1990s, and the second greatly increasing its usage at the same), there is no detectable effect of capital punishment on crime." He cites a 2012 study by the National Academy of Sciences, which, "concluded that there was no credible evidence that the death penalty deters homicides." He also appeals to the psychology of crime and punishment: "Since murderers typically expose themselves to far greater immediate risks, the likelihood is incredibly remote that some small chance of execution many years after committing a crime will influence the behavior of a sociopathic deviant who would otherwise be willing to kill if his only penalty were life imprisonment." Donohue argues that a more effective way of reducing murders "is to take the resources that would otherwise be wasted in operating a death penalty regime and use them on strategies that are known to reduce crime," such as improved policing. Donohue concludes, "With zero evidence that the death penalty provides any tangible benefits and very clear indications of its monetary, human and social costs, this is one program about which there can be little debate that its costs undeniably outweigh any possible benefits."
(UPDATE: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has granted Bernard Tercero a stay of execution to permit him to litigate evidence that a lead prosecution witness testified falsely against him.) The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), a unit of the Organization of American States, has called on Texas officials to stay the execution of Nicaraguan citizen Bernardo Tercero (pictured), who is scheduled to be executed in Texas on August 26. Under international treaties on consular relations, foreign citizens (including Americans abroad) must be afforded access to their government's consulate at the time of their arrest. The IACHR has ruled that Texas' failure to respect these treaty obligations denied Tercero "his right to consular notification and assistance [and] deprived him of a criminal process that satisfied the minimum standards of due process and a fair trial" required under Inter-American human rights treaties. The IACHR also concluded that Tercero's court-appointed counsel "committed serious mistakes that affected his right to defense" and that procedural rulings by the courts in his case denied Tercero the "possibility to have his sentence effectively reviewed." The Organization of American States issued a statement saying that, "Should the state of Texas carry out this execution, it would be committing a serious and irreparable violation of the basic right to life" guaranteed in American human rights instruments. As of June 9, 2015, 139 foreign nationals were on death rows across America, with 61 in California and 22 in Texas.
In the first episode of season 2 of "Death Row Stories," CNN examined the case of Ruben Cantu, who was executed in Texas in 1993 despite serious doubts about his guilt. The episode featured an interview with Sam Milsap, the District Attorney at the time of Cantu's trial, who asserted his belief in Cantu's innocence. Cantu's co-defendant and a key eyewitness from the case both supported Cantu's claim of innocence. The hour-long episode of the documentary series recounted how Lise Olsen, an investigative reporter for the Houston Chronicle, raised questions about the case and eventually convinced Milsap that Cantu was not guilty. "Death Row Stories" is produced by Robert Redford and narrated by Susan Sarandon. It airs Sundays at 10 pm. Other episodes this season include the stories of Randy Steidl and Seth Penalver, who were exonerated and freed from death row.
A Food and Drug Administration letter to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction indicated the state was considering importing sodium thiopental from overseas for use in executions. The letter warned the department that importing the drug would violate federal law: "Please note that there is no FDA approved application for sodium thiopental, and it is illegal to import an unapproved new drug into the United States." A similar letter was sent to Nebraska officials after the state spent over $50,000 in an attempt to obtain lethal injection drugs from a source in India. All executions were put on hold in Ohio after the botched execution of Dennis McGuire in 2014, as the state has pursued a new execution protocol. The potential foreign supplier was not revealed because Ohio, like many other states, keeps the identity of execution-drug suppliers secret.
A recent op-ed by former Texas Governor Mark White (pictured) and former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerald Kogan criticized a recently passed North Carolina law that imposes secrecy on the source of lethal injection drugs and removes execution procedures from public review and comment. The authors said the new law will only prolong litigation, rather than ending North Carolina's hold on executions, as intended. The op-ed also maintained that the new policy violates democratic principles: "The foundation of our constitutional republic lies in accountability and transparency, enabling American citizens to learn and debate about policy. Yet citizens cannot engage in robust conversations when basic information is hidden." Arguing that both supporters and opponents of the death penalty should oppose secrecy, they said, "Regardless of our views on the death penalty, Americans must maintain a principled approach to its implementation. The standard ought to be the U.S. Constitution, which mandates the government impose no cruel and unusual punishments. As long as states implement the death penalty, we must ensure they follow this constitutional standard."
A new study of trials in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, revealed that potential jurors who were black were much more likely to be struck from juries than non-blacks. The results were consistent with findings from Alabama, North Carolina, and other parts of Louisiana, highlighting an issue that will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. In Caddo Parish, an area known for its many death sentences, prosecutors used peremptory strikes against 46% of black jurors, but only 15% of other jurors, according to the study by Reprieve Australia. The racial composition of the juries appeared to make a difference in the ultimate outcome of the cases. The study found that no defendants were acquitted by juries with 2 or fewer black jurors, but 19% were acquitted when 5 or more jurors were black. In an Alabama study, prosecutors used peremptory strikes to remove 82% of eligible black potential jurors from trials in which the death penalty was imposed. A study of death penalty cases in North Carolina found that prosecutors struck 53% of black potential jurors but only 26% of others. (Click image to enlarge.)
DPIC's complete set of 50 facts about the death penalty is now available. The 50 facts provide an excellent introduction to a variety of death penalty topics, including costs, deterrence, race, innocence, and more. Each fact is presented in graphical form, with links to further information available on our 50 Facts page. The series is also available on Facebook and Twitter, and we encourage readers to share and retweet items they found particularly interesting or surprising.
On August 6, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed a law that removed the requirement that a physician be present at executions and shrouded in secrecy many elements of the lethal injection process, including the specific drugs to be used and the suppliers of those drugs. By eliminating the physician-participation requirement, the law attempted to remove a legal hurdle that has halted executions in North Carolina since 2006. Two major state newspapers sharply criticized the new law, calling it, "macabre" and "an ugly spectacle." The Fayetteville Observer said, "We need thoughtful discussion of the issue and whether we're imposing a fair sentence or simply seeking revenge for a terrible crime. What we don't need is a General Assembly slicing away at reasonable public understanding of the state's execution protocols, instead choosing to wrap it all in secrecy." The News & Observer (Raleigh) called the law "a horribly misguided idea," citing the "gruesome outcomes" of experimental lethal injection protocols in other states. The editorial concluded, "Rather than put executions on a fast track, North Carolina should abandon them altogether."