CAPITAL DEFENSE WEEKLY

Two favorable cases are noted since the last edition.  In Ex parte Brian Edward Davis the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted penalty phase relief as "[t]he nullification instruction given to applicant’s jury was not a sufficient vehicle to allow jurors to give meaningful consideration and full effect to the mitigating evidence presented by applicant." In Shonelle Andre Jackson v. State,  a case missed in the last edition, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals remanded  for "the circuit court to again consider Jackson's juror-misconduct allegations" as the trial court improperly ruled the claims barred.

DPIC notes that "Virginia has not had a death verdict from a jury since March 2008, the longest stretch of time without a death verdict since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s.  Nationally, there has also been a decline in death sentences:  according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 115 death sentences in 2007, 65% less than the 326 that were handed down in 1995."   In Texas "the number of death sentences is at a 35-year low as prosecutors have pushed for fewer death sentences and juries have become less willing to impose them"

The Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association in its member edition Fall 2009 issue focuses on Postconviction Practices:  Priming Postconviction Representation (by Andrew E. Taslitz);  Procedural Obstacles to Reviewing Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel Claims in State and Federal Postconviction Proceedings (by Eve Brensike Primus); Postconviction Claims of Innocence (by Myrna S. Raeder);  Gubernatorial Clemency Powers: Justice or Mercy? (by Kathleen “Cookie” Ridolfi and Seth Gordon)' and From Arrest to Reintegration: A Model for Mitigating Collateral Consequences of Criminal Proceedings (by J. McGregor Smyth, Jr.).  John Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, and Christopher Seeds" recently published An Empirical Look at Atkins vs. Virginia and its Application in Capital Cases.  Here's the abstract:

In Atkins vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared that evolving standards of decency and the Eighth Amendment prohibit the death penalty for individuals with intellectual disability (formerly, "mental retardation"). Both supporters and opponents of the categorical exemption, however, have criticized the Atkins opinion. The Atkins dissent, for example, urged that the decision would open the gates of litigation to a flood of frivolous claims. Another prominent criticism, heard from those more supportive of the Court's ruling, has been that the language the Court used communicating that states must "generally conform" to the clinical definitions of mental retardation is ambiguous enough to permit states to stray from the clinical definitions and, consequently, for death eligibility to vary depending upon the jurisdiction in which a defendant is charged. This Article presents preliminary data responsive to these issues, and reports three basic findings. First, Atkins has not opened floodgates of non-meritorious litigation. Second, the success rates for Atkins claims vary dramatically between states and state deviations from the clinical definitions appear to have a palpable impact. Third, as compared to their representation on death row, African-American defendants both file and win a disproportionately high number of Atkins claims.

The Texas Board of Pardons & Parole recommended that Houston Robert Thompson's death sentence be commuted. Texas Gov.Perry rejected  the commutation recommendation.

Finally, Google scholar now has case law and law reviews. They look to be running about two months behind the most recent materials. Thanks as always for reading.. - k

Pending Executions 
December
2 Cecil Johnson Jr.* (Tenn)
3 Bobby Woods* Texas)
9 Devin Banks (Tenn)
11 Eric Wrinkles* (Ind)
16 John Amos Small (Penn)
17 Antoine Ligons (Penn)

Stays & Reprieves
November
December
8 Kenneth Biros * (Ohio)

Recent Executions
November
5 Khristian Oliver* (Texas)
10 Yosvanis Valle* (Texas)
10 John Allen Muhammad* (Virginia)
17 Larry  Elliott* (Virginia)
18 Danielle Simpson*  (Texas)(V)
19 Robert Thompson* (Texas)
* "serious" execution date / (s) stay believed likely / (V) Volunteer / note this list may exclude any recently added execution date
(note that none of the Pennsylvania dates listed are likely actual execution dates)
Supreme Court
  • Wong v. Belmontes (08-1263) (11/16/2009)  Per curiam, GVR, reversing and remanding, for the third time, a penalty phase grant of relief finding no prejudice in counsel's deficient penalty phase performance.
  • Bobby v. Robert J. Van Hook, No. 09-144 (11/9/2009)  Sixth Circuit imprudently granted habeas relief as it used the wrong standards and misjudged the factual record before it as to trial counsel's choices.
  • John Allen Muhammad v. Kelly, No. 09–7328 (11/9/2009) Certiorari denied with three justices concurring as to the propriety of setting execution dates prior to completion of the first round of habeas review.
Week of November 16, 2009 – In Favor of the Accused or Condemned  (initial list)
  • Ex parte Brian Edward Davis, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 750(Tex Crim App 11/18/2009) (unpublished)  (dissent) "The nullification instruction given to applicant’s jury was not a sufficient vehicle to allow jurors to give meaningful consideration and full effect to the mitigating evidence presented by applicant. Because the mitigating evidence presented at applicant’s trial is the type of evidence for which he was entitled to a separate and sufficient vehicle, we remand the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing."
Week of November 16, 2009 – In Favor of the State or Government (initial list)
  • Roderick Allen Orme v. State, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1950 (FL 11/19/2009) Relief denied on claims relating to: (1) consideration of remorse as a mitigator; (2) inquiry of prospective jurors of mercy; (3) "the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the venire after one prospective juror indicated he was opposed to a life sentence without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years because Orme had been convicted fifteen years ago;" (4) "trial court erred in refusing to allow him to waive his right to the sentencing option of life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years in favor of a harsher punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole;" (5) "trial court erred by failing to give weight to Orme‘s difficult childhood, to the fact that Orme was a model prisoner, to Orme‘s potential for rehabilitation, and to Orme‘s attempt to get the victim help;" (6) "trial court erred in finding the pecuniary gain aggravator because the taking of property was not an integral part of the murder;" (7) "trial court erred in finding the murder to have been committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) manner because the evidence did not show that he enjoyed the suffering of his victim;" (8) "trial court erred in finding that the 'murder was committed in the course of a sexual battery' aggravator applied;" (9) Ring; and (10)proportionality.
  • State v. Quincy Jovan Allen, 2009 S.C. LEXIS 526 (SC 11/16/2009) Relief denied on "issues [that] involve trial court's comment on deterrent effect of death penalty, designation of statutory aggravating circumstances, and the impact of S.C. Code Ann. 16-3-20's requirement that the trial court conduct the sentencing proceeding when a capital defendant pleads guilty." [via the Clerk's Office]
  • Commonwealth v. Jermont Cox,  2009 Pa. LEXIS 2423 (Penn 11/19/2009) "A trial court properly denied appellant relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546, regarding his murder convictions as his claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel were found meritless and there was sufficient evidence supporting the aggravating factors under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(2) and (7)." [via Lexis]
  • Humberto Leal v. State,  2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1611 (Tex Crim App 11/18/2009) "A trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ch. 64 where he had not shown that there was greater than a 50 percent chance that he would not have been convicted of capital murder based upon such testing."
  • Gerald Eldridge v. State,   NO. 9403201 (TexCrimApp 11/16/2009) (unpublished)  "[T]he trial court found that appellant had failed to make a substantial showing of incompetency as required by Article 46.05. It therefore determined that it was not required to appoint additional experts or hold a hearing on the motion. Upon appellant's request, the record was then sent to this Court for review. See Art. 46.05(l). Because appellant's motion was filed before the 20th day prior to his scheduled execution date, this Court has the authority to review the trial court's determination that appellant failed to make a substantial showing."  "Having reviewed the record, we hold that the trial court's ruling was supported by the record. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court's findings on the issue of appellant's competency to be executed. No stay of execution need be granted. Further, the mandate of the Court shall issue immediately, and no motions for rehearing shall be entertained."
  • Max Alexander Soffar v. State, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 760 (Tex Crim App 11/18/2009) (unpublished)  Relief denied, most notably, on the trial court's exclusion of media reports that showed the details contained in the confession had been published prior to Mr. Soffar's statement and "admission of his confession to prove future dangerousness (including uncharged sexual assualts) was harmful because it was the most serious extraneous offense and it formed a significant part of the State's case for death."  Both errors were "harmless."
  • Ex parte Brian Edward Davis, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 750(Tex Crim App 11/18/2009) (unpublished)  (dissent) "The nullification instruction given to applicant’s jury was not a sufficient vehicle to allow jurors to give meaningful consideration and full effect to the mitigating evidence presented by applicant. Because the mitigating evidence presented at applicant’s trial is the type of evidence for which he was entitled to a separate and sufficient vehicle, we remand the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing."
  • Ex parte Danielle Simpson, 2009 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 771 (Tex Crim App 11/18/2009) (unpublished)  Application for writ of habeas corpus and stay denied without substantive analysis.
Week of November 9, 2009 – In Favor of the Accused or Condemned
  • Shonelle Andre Jackson v. State,  2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 145 (Ala. Crim. App. 11/13/2009) Remand for "the circuit court to again consider Jackson's juror-misconduct allegations in light of Burgess," as "[i]t is unreasonable to hold that a defendant must uncover any and all juror misconduct in the form of inaccurate responses to voir dire examination in time to raise such claims in a motion for a new trial or on appeal."
Week of November 9, 2009 – In Favor of the State or Government
  • Jimmy Lamar Killingsworth, Jr. v. State, 2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 153 (Ala. Crim. App. 11/13/2009) Jury override to death. Relief denied on claims relating to (1)"motion for a change of venue;" (2) "trial court erred in denying three of his challenges for cause and in granting four of the State's challenges for cause;" (3) "the trial court erred in dismissing twenty-six veniremembers without excuses (excellent recitations on how to get out of jury duty);" (4) "the State used all but three of its sixteen peremptory challenges against white female veniremember;" (5) "trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to law enforcement officers after he invoked his right to counsel;" as well as (6) "trial court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instructions regarding particularized intent, mere presence, knowledge alone being insufficient, culpability, contemplation of robbery, willingness to assist, accomplice to an intentional killing, personal intent to kill, and reckless murder"
  • Kenneth Billups v. State, 2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 155 (Ala. Crim. App. 11/13/2009) (dissent) Relief denied, as the dissent notes,  concerning whether "Significant reversible error occurred when the trial court admitted vast amounts of evidence about an unrelated, horrendous crime against four victims, in violation of the principles governing the admission of other-crimes evidence."
  • Reginald Clemons v. Crawford, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24596 (8th Cir 2/11/2009) Arkansas' lethal injection protocol upheld. "Missouri death row prisoners challenging Missouri's execution protocol did not allege a sufficiently substantial risk of serious harm or a sufficiently imminent danger to state an Eighth Amendment claim, and the district court did not err, as a matter of law, in determining that the prisoners had failed to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment; no error in denying motions to intervene." [via the Eighth Circuit's Clerk Office]
  • Manuel Pardo,Jr., v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24644  (11th Cir 11/10/2009) Relief denied on "(1) whether the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte order a full competency hearing; (2) whether he was tried while incompetent; (3) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request a competency hearing, failed to discover the underlying cause for Pardo’s insanity, and waived severance of the murder counts; and (4) whether he was denied his right to adversarial testing during the guilt phase by the prosecution’s withholding of material evidence."
  • Gregory Christopher Decay v. State,  2009 Ark. 566; 2009 Ark. LEXIS 743 (Ark 11/12/2009) "Appellant Gregory Decay appeals from the judgment and commitment order of the Washington County Circuit Court, convicting him of two counts of capital murder and sentencing him twice to death. Decay argues fourteen points on appeal: (1) the circuit court erred in failing to suppress Decay's statements to law enforcement; (2) the circuit court erred in failing to suppress telephone calls made by Decay from the Washington County Detention Center; (3) the circuit court improperly excused four jurors for cause; (4) the circuit court erred by refusing to submit a jury instruction regarding Decay's good character; (5) the circuit court erred in prohibiting testimony and evidence of the victims' lives during the guilt phase of trial; (6) the circuit court erred by allowing the State to present a photograph of Decay holding an assault rifle; (7) the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of a third  [*2]  party statement into evidence; (8) the circuit court erred by allowing the State to obtain two separate  [**2] sentences of death for the same aggravating circumstance; (9) the circuit court erred in rejecting Decay's proffered jury instruction regarding victim-impact testimony; (10) the jury erred by failing to find evidence presented that constituted mitigating factors; (11) the circuit court failed to limit victim-impact testimony presented by the State; (12) the circuit court erroneously limited evidence of mitigation; (13) the circuit court erred by allowing the prosecutor to make improper statements during closing arguments; and, finally, (14) this court should reverse for other issues after conducting a mandatory review pursuant to Rule 10 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure--Criminal. We find no error and affirm."
  • Charles Grover Brant v. State, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1922 (FL 11/12/2009) "On appeal, Brant argues that his death sentence is disproportionate. He does not raise any claims regarding the propriety of his pleas or his penalty-phase trial."
  • William Reaves v. State, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1871 (FL 11/4/2009) (unpublished) "Reaves asserts that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his public records request for the "Mirman letter"; (2) the trial court erred in summarily denying his Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida's lethal injection protocols; and (3) the Department of Corrections improperly delegated its authority to create and implement lethal injection procedures to the Attorney General's Office in violation of the separation of powers doctrine."
  • Michael Allen Griffin v. McCollum,  2009 Fla. LEXIS 1872 (FL 11/2/2009) (unpublished) Relief denied as to a "belated petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Griffin asks this Court to address the merits of his habeas petition even though the petition is untimely, arguing that his postconviction counsel, through neglect, failed to file the petition."
  • Robert Owen Arrington v. State, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 690 (Ga 11/9/2009) Relief denied, most notably, on "whether the imposition of the death penalty in Georgia is “arbitrary and capricious.” “Georgia‟s death penalty statutes have been repeatedly upheld as constitutional,” the opinion says. The high court also rejects Arrington‟s contention that the “proportionality review” – comparing similar cases and sentences to determine whether the death penalty is excessive or out of line for the crime involved – failed to meet statutory and constitutional requirements. The Court notes that it has rejected similar arguments and that “Arrington has presented nothing that supports a contrary conclusion in this case.” And the Court rejects Arrington‟s claim that his constitutional rights were violated by the admission of evidence that he had pleaded guilty to killing his wife, Elizabeth, 15 years earlier. In another matter, Arrington‟s attorney objected during jury selection after the State used 70 percent of its peremptory strikes to remove African Americans from the jury. In response, the trial court did require the State to articulate its reasons for the strikes and subsequently accepted the State‟s basis for them. “Considering the totality of the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court‟s Batson ruling was clearly erroneous,” the Supreme Court concludes." [via Georgia Supreme Court's Clerk Office]
  • State v. Millard Price, 2009 Del. Super. LEXIS 418 ( Del. Super. 11/9/2009) Defendant's motion to dismiss or to merge the weapons charges denied
  • State v. Millard Price, 2009 Del. Super. LEXIS 414(Del. Super.  11/9/2009) Defendant "has moved for an order compelling the State to provide Defendant with equal access to criminal records of the jury array or to preclude the State from possessing such records during jury selection." Relief denied.
  • State v. Millard Price, 2009 Del. Super. LEXIS 417 (Del. Super.  11/9/2009) In this capital murder case, Defendant Millard E. Price has moved to sever the first two counts, Murder First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, from the remaining 17 counts in the Indictment. He argues that joinder of all the counts against him would be unfairly prejudicial at trial. The State opposes the motion, arguing that the charges are properly joined and that Defendant has not established substantial prejudice. For the reasons explained below, the motion for severance is denied.  
  • State v. Millard Price, 2009 Del. Super. LEXIS 419 (Del. Super.  11/9/2009)  "Defendant asks the Court to declare the death penalty statute unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds § 4209 comports with the requirements of Apprendi v. New Jersey 1 and Ring v. Arizona, 2 as well as Delaware law. "

Week of November 2, 2009 – In Favor of the Accused or Condemned 

  • Ex parte Joe Nathan James, Jr.; (In re: Joe Nathan James, Jr. v. State of Alabama),  2009 Ala. LEXIS 260 (Ala11/6/2009) " In the present case, it is undisputed that the State did not plead the affirmative defense of the preclusionary grounds of Rule 32 concerning the majority of James's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, thus waiving that affirmative defense, and that no "extraordinary circumstances" exist that would justify the Court of Criminal Appeals' sua sponte application of the procedural grounds to those of James's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims as to which the State did not plead the affirmative defense. The State concedes that the Court of Criminal Appeals' sua sponte application of the preclusionary grounds of Rule 32 to James's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims conflicts with Clemons and that its judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for that court to consider the merits of James's remaining ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. We agree. As Clemons establishes, the preclusionary grounds of Rule 32 are affirmative defenses that must be pleaded or they are waived; the preclusionary grounds do not affect the courts ' jurisdiction. The State concedes that it waived the preclusionary grounds by not pleading them as an affirmative defense in the circuit court. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and remand the case for that court to consider the merits of James's remaining ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
  • Gary Van Johnson v. Mitchell, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24142; 2009 FED App. 0384P (6th Cir. 11/4/2009) "At trial, counsel's failure to investigate left Johnson with only his own unsworn, antagonistic statement to the jury to counteract the evidence of aggravating circumstances attendant to the crime. As a result, the jurors were left with no choice but to view Johnson as a calculating individual, apparently a loner without human connection even with his family, and willing to murder anyone standing in the way of his acquisition of money that could be used to purchase drugs or alcohol. The presence of other information easily uncovered by the investigation of an effective advocate, however, would have allowed the jurors to see that the petitioner's relatives did care about Johnson, that as a child he had endured many hardships and traumatic experiences, and that he suffered from a personality disorder that, although not absolving him of responsibility for his crimes, helped explain why certain circumstances would be viewed by the petitioner in certain ways and would prompt certain abnormal responses. The jury might also have seen Johnson as an individual struggling to act appropriately in the face of paranoia and a distorted world view, a struggle that was only exacerbated by drug abuse. To hold in this case that serious consideration of such evidence could not have "change[d] the calculation the jury previously made when weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the murder," [ ] is -- in our judgment -- to ignore reality."
  • Ricky Dale Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 540; 2009 Ark. LEXIS 706 (Ark 11/5/2009) Petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court for postconviction/writ of error coram nobis proceedings granted."In sum, Newman claims that the State suppressed a trove of highly favorable evidence and that, had this evidence been disclosed, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would not have convicted him. Based upon the record before us, we conclude that it appears that there were possible Brady violations in this case. We are mindful of Newman's confessions; however, Newman has presented evidence that he might have been incompetent when he made the confessions. As such, we are in no position to determine whether, had the suppressed evidence been disclosed to the defense and presented at trial, there is a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been rendered. This determination must first be made by the circuit court. We add that, for the reasons previously stated, Newman exercised diligence in his claim of Brady violations."
Week of November 2, 2009 – In Favor of the State or Government (initial list)
  •  Commonwealth v. Sherwood,  2009 Pa. LEXIS 2359 (PA 11/6/2009) "In this appeal, Appellant asserts that he is entitled to relief because: 1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for first-degree murder; 2) the verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder was against the weight of the evidence; 3) the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of prior bad acts; 4) the suppression court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements and the physical evidence seized by police; 5) there was no evidence of torture; 6) trial counsel was ineffective; and 7) a new trial should be granted on account of the number of errors extant in the trial. After careful review, we hold that Appellant is not entitled to relief on any of these claims"
  • Micheal Webb v. Mitchell,  2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24255; 2009 FED App. 0385P (6th Cir. 11/5/2009) Relief denied "where: 1) defendant's Brady claim is rejected as there is no reasonable probability that, had a certain police report been disclosed, the outcome would have been different; 2) defendant's ex post facto and due process violation claims are rejected; 3) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase claim is rejected; 4) defendant's Fifth Amendment violation claim based on prosecution's comment on his failure to testify is rejected; and 5) district court did not err in concluding that defendant procedurally defaulted two of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims." [via FindLaw]
  • Emanuel Fitzgerald Hammond v. Hall, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24209 (11th Cir 11/4/2009) "In a capital habeas matter, denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) a witness's testimony about her criminal history was literally accurate; 2) it was unclear what evidence petitioner claimed was suppressed by the state; 3) the district court's finding that the prosecutor did not bully petitioner into testifying was not clear error; 4) there was no evidence that the prosecutor received exculpatory test results and hid them; and 5) certain suppressed evidence was not material, given the overwhelming evidence of petitioner's guilt" [via FindLaw]
  • Mark Allen Davis v. State, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1867 (FL 11/5/2009) Relief denied as "newly discovered evidence would not probably produce an acquittal on retrial or result in different sentences, and the claims under Brady v. Maryland,  Giglio v. United States,  and Strickland v. Washington, are facially insufficient."
  • Hall v. James Allyson Lee,  2009 Ga. LEXIS 670 (GA 11/2/2009) Trial "court's determination that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present life history and psychiatric mitigating evidence" reversed and death sentence reinstated.
  • State  vs. Leonard S. Taylor,  2009 Mo. LEXIS 530 (Mo 10/27/2009) "The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain statements as hearsay, in admitting the results of two scientific tests, in overruling [Mr. Taylor]’s motion to exclude the test results based on the timing of their disclosure before trial, in admitting into evidence portions of a detective’s interrogation of the man’s brother, or in overruling [Mr. Taylor]’s request for a mistrial when he was handcuffed and removed from the courtroom after the jury found him guilty. [Mr. Taylor] fails to show that the trial court violated his constitutional or statutory rights to a speedy trial, erred in striking a particular juror for cause or committed plain error in not intervening, on its own motion, in response to certain comments made during the state’s closing argument. Further, this Court’s independent proportionality review shows the imposition of the death penalty here meets the statutory requirements." [via the Clerk's Office]
  • Shannon Johnson v. State, 2009 Del. LEXIS 582 (Del 11/4/2009) Relief denied on claims relating to: the trial court's failure to suppress certain letters sent by Johnson to his then girlfriend while he was incarcerated, failure to sever certain weapons counts, admission of evidence suggesting Johnson's involvement in another shooting, limitations placed on cross examination of the state's lead witness, admission of hearsay evidence in the penalty phase concerning a prior rape conviction, failure to admit hearsay evidence relating to that prior conviction, admission of other crime evidence in the penalty phase, admission of victim's father testimony about pending legislation called "Cameron's Law", and statutory review.

  • Ex parte Norris,  2009 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 11/4/2009) (dissent) Relief denied without substantive discussion.  Dissent notes that Norris recent case law suggests that Norris is not guilty of capital murder but rather mere murder.

If you have problem with this edition it is available at http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/091116.htm for printing. We'd simply ask that before printing consider our environment and saving our trees.  If you find this email useful, feel free to forward it or excerpt it. We prefer attribution, but don't require it.

As a reminder,we don't charge a subscription fee, but if you find the weekly useful we'd appreciate even a nominal tax deductible donation to a nonprofit involved in some aspect of the capital punishment issue, such as  Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty  (website/donate)(where I'm currently the co-chair) or the Fair Trial Initiative (website/donate).  On each of the above links you're able to donate as little or as much as you want, or even set up a monthly automated giving amount.  As always, thanks for reading, and special thanks go to Steve Hall whose Stand Down website is often borrowed from here, as well as our "researchers" and "reporters" who have asked not to be named.  - k

SMALL PRINT
We've been at this 11+ years now.  Thanks to all those whose time, efforts, and contributions have made it possible.

SUBSCRIBING & ARCHIVES: The summaries above are normally published forty (40) times (or so) a year. To subscribe: capital_defense_weekly-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. To unsubscribe: capital_defense_weekly-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
1997-2009COPYRIGHT / FAIR USE NOTICE: In plain English, you can use these materials without attribution (although I would appreciate the attribution) for any noncommercial purposes you see fit, (such as professional education, your newsletter, etc.). You can't use the works created by others contained in this newsletter identified above (normally selected excerpts from the works of others) as I simply can't give away the rights of others to their intellectual property. Any derivative works must provide at least as equal or greater waiver of intellectual property rights. Nothing in this newsletter constitutes legal advice. The legalese, copyright, disclaimers, notices, & terms of usage are available in full here. Where in conflict with the plain English version of this disclaimer / copyright notice, please go with the legalese
DISCLAIMER: In plain English, due your own due diligence. Legalese: Use does not constitute establishment of attorney-client relationship. On a semi-regular basis cases in which the writer(s) have participated in one manner or another (including as counsel of record) may be covered here. As always, the views expressed here represent an attempt to show what a given Court held, not whether a particular court reached the right decision The opinions noted above are normally "slip opinions" that may be modified or withdrawn by the issuing court without notice. Note the citation method we use is to permit readers to readily find opinions either from a given court, Lexis, or the free Lexis product Lexisone.com.

OPEN RESEARCH DATA: Search terms for the weekly are "capital habeas" or "capital postconviction" or "DEATH PENALTY" OR "CAPITAL MURDER" OR "SENTENCED TO DEATH" OR "PENALTY PHASE" OR "SPECIAL QUESTIONS" or "SENTENCE OF DEATH" OR "DEATH SENTENCE" or "capital punishment" or "witherspoon"- please note, however, the terms "overproduce" results, including all federal habeas corpus opinions. Execution and other news information derived from Rick Halperin, DPIC, Steve Hall & media accounts. Thx - karl keys