.gif){kind=small}
| Issue/State | New York | Comments |
| Recommendation 1: After a suspect has been identified, the police should continue to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry whether these point towards or away from the suspect | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 2: (a) The police must list on schedules all existing items of relevant evidence including exculpatory evidence, and their location, (b) Record-keeping obligations must be assigned to specific police officers or employees who must certify their compliance in writing to the prosecutor; (c) The police must give copies of the schedules to the prosecution, (d) The police must give access to all investigatory materials in their possession. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 3: In a death eligible case, representation by the public defender during a custodial interrogation should be authorized by the [state legislature] when a suspect requests the advice of counsel, and where there is a reasonable belief that the suspect is indigent. To the extent that there is some doubt about the indigency of the suspect, police should resolve the in favor of allowing the suspect to have access to the public defender. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 4: Custodial interrogations of a suspect in a homicide case occurring at a police facility should be videotaped. Videotaping should not include merely the statement made by the suspect after interrogation, but the entire interrogation process. (Dissent) | Not met under current law | Differing law enforcement agencies at the federal level require this, but not at all agencies |
| Recommendation 5: Any statements by a homicide suspect which are not recorded should be repeated to the suspect on tape, and his or her comments recorded. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 6: There are circumstances in which videotaping may not be practical, and some uniform method of recording such interrogations, such as tape recording, should be established. Police investigators should carry tape recorders for use when interviewing suspects in homicide cases outside the station, and all such interviews should be audiotape. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 7: The [state eavesdropping act] should be amended to permit police taping of statements without the suspects' knowledge or consent in order to enable the videotaping and audio taping of statements as recommended by the Commission. The amendment should apply only to homicide cases, where the suspect is aware that the person asking the question is a police officer. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 8: The police should electronically record interviews conducted of significant witnesses in homicide cases where it is reasonably foreseeable that their testimony may be challenged at trial | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 9: Police should be required to make a reasonable attempt to determine the suspect's mental capacity before interrogation, and if a suspect is determined to be mentally retarded, the police should be limited to asking nonleading questions and prohibited from implying they believe the suspect is guilty. | Not met under current law but see comment | Note: Constitutional law scholars have openly debated whether this is in fact now actually required under existing federal case law. |
| Recommendation 10: When practicable, police departments should insure that the person who conducts the lineup or photospread should not be aware of which member of the lineup or photo spread is the suspect (dissent) | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 11: (A) Eyewitnesses should be told explicitly that the suspected perpetrator might not be in the the lineup or photospread, and therefore they should not feel they must make an identification; (B) Eyewitnesses should also be told that they should not assume that the person administering the lineup or photospread knows which person is the suspect in the case. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 12: If the administrator of the lineup or photospread does not know who the suspect is, a sequential procedure should be used, so that the eyewitness views only one lineup member or photo at a time and makes a decision (that is the perpetrator or that is not the perpetrator) regarding each person before viewing another lineup member or photo. (Dissent - too awkward) | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 13: Suspects should not stand out in the lineup or photo spread as being different from the distractors, based on the eyewitnesses previous description of the perpetrator, or based on other factors that would draw attention to the suspect | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 14: A clear written statement should be made of any statements made by the eyewitness at the time of the identification procedure as to his or her confidence that the identified person is or is not the actual culprit. This statement should be recorded prior to any feedback by law enforcement personnel | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 15: When practicable, the police should videotape lineup procedures, including the witness' confidence statement. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 16: All police who work on homicide cases should receive periodic training in the following areas and experts on these subjects should be retained to conduct training and prepare manuals on these topics: (1) The risks of false testimony by in-custody informants ("jailhouse snitches"); (2) The risks of false testimony by accomplice witnesses; (3) The dangers of tunnel vision or confirmatory bias; (4) The risks of wrongful convictions in homicide cases' (5) Police investigative and interrogation methods; (6) Police investigating and reporting of exculpatory evidence; (7) Forensic evidence; and (8) The risks of false confessions. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 17 Police academies, police agencies, an the {department of correction] should include within their training curricula information on consular rights and the notification obligations to be followed during the arrest and detention of foreign nationals. | Not met | |
| Recommendation 18: The [state attorney general] should remind all law enforcement agencies of their notification obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and undertake regular reviews of the measures taken by state and local police to ensure full compliance. This could include publication of a guide based on the United States State Department Manual. | Not met | |
| Recommendation 19: The statue relating to the [state law enforcement training standards board] should be amended to add police perjury (regardless of whether there is a criminal conviction) as a basis upon which the Board may revoke certification of a peace officer | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 20: An independent state forensic laboratory should be crated, operated by civilian personnel with its own budget separate from any policy agency or supervision. (Dissent: cost & not a strong enough measure) | Not met under current law | While independent forensic examination may be had on court order, there is no state law or other requirement that meets the recommendations of the Commission |
| Recommendation 21: Adequate funding should be provided by the [state] to hire and train both entry level and supervisory level forensic scientists to support expansion of DNA testing and evaluation Support should also be provided for additional up-to-date facilities for DNA testing The state should be prepared to outsource by sending evidence to private companies for analysis when appropriate | Not met under current law | While independent forensic examination may be had on court order, there is no state law or other requirement that meets the recommendations of the Commission |
| Recommendation 22: The commission supports the [state supreme court rule] establish minimum standards for DNA evidence. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 23: The federal government and state should provide adequate funding to enable the development of a comprehensive DNA database | No state or federal law requirement | The Innocence Protection Act at the federal level is currently stalled in the House of Representatives |
| Recommendation 24: State Statutes should be amended to provide that in a capital case a defendant may apply to the court for an order to obtain a search of the DNA database to identify others who may be guilty of the crime. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 25: In capital cases forensic testing, including DNA testing pursuant to state law, should be permitted where it has a scientific potential to produce new, noncummulative evidence relevant to the defendant's assertion of actual innocence even though the results may not completely exonerate the defendant. | Not met under current law but see comment | Note: Constitutional law scholars have openly debated whether this is in fact now actually required under existing federal case law. |
| Recommendation 26: The provisions governing the capital litigation trust fund should be construed broadly so as to provide a source funding for forensic testing pursuant to state law when the defendant faces the possibility of a capital sentence. | Not met under current law but see comment | While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement, the harsh reality is capital defense funding still remains a patch quilt in each of the listed jurisdictions where luck too often determines who gets what resources |
| Recommendation 27: The current list of 20 eligibility factors should be reduced to a smaller number | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 28: There should be only five eligibility factors [murdering multiple victims, killing a police officer or firefighter, killing an officer or inmate in a correctional institution, murdering to obstruct justice or torturing the victim. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 29: The [state attorney general] and the [state's prosecutor association] should adopt recommendations as to the procedures [prosecutors] should follow in deciding whether or not to seek the death penalty, but these recommendations should not have the force of law, or be imposed by court rule or legislation. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 30: The death sentencing statute should be revised to include a mandatory review of death eligibility undertaken by a statewide review committee. In the absence of legislative action to make this a mandatory scheme, the Governor should make a commitment to setting up a voluntary review process, supported by the presumption that the Governor will commute the death sentences of defendants when the prosecutor has not participated in the voluntary review process, unless the prosecutor can offer a compelling explanation, based on exception circumstances, for the failure to submit the case for review.. . . [Dissent: recommendation goes too far] | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 31: The Commission supports [Illinois] SUpreme Court Rule 416(c) requiring that the state announce its intention to seek the death penalty, and the factor to be relied upon, as soon as practicable but in no event later than 120 days after arraignment. | YES | |
| Recommendation 32: The [state supreme court] should give consideration to encouraging the [state administrative office of the courts] to undertake a concerted effort to educate trial judges throughout the state in the parameters of the capital crimes litigation act and the funding sources available for defense of capital cases. | Not met under current law but see comment | While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement the Commission's language is subjective and ambiguous. The clear intent of the recommendation is not met, in the writer's opinion, by any jurisdiction. |
| Recommendation 33: Expanded judicial training to be required prior to assignment of a capital case to a judge | YES | While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement the Commission's language is subjective and ambiguous. The clear intent of the recommendation is not met, in the writer's opinion, by any jurisdiction. |
| Recommendation 34: In light of the changes in the Illinois Supreme Court rules governing the discovery procedures capital cases, the Supreme Court should give consideration to ways the Court can insure that particularized training is provided to trial judges with respect to implementation of the new rules governing capital litigation, especially with respect to the management of the discovery process. | N/A | |
| Recommendation 35: All judges who are trying capital cases should receive periodic training in the following areas and experts on these subjects should be retained to conduct training and prepare manuals on these topics: (1) The risks of false testimony by in-custody informants ("jailhouse snitches"); (2) The risks of false testimony by accomplice witnesses; (3) The dangers of tunnel vision or confirmatory bias; (4) The risks of wrongful convictions in homicide cases' (5) Police investigative and interrogation methods; (6) Police investigating and reporting of exculpatory evidence; (7) Forensic evidence; and (8) The risks of false confessions. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 36: The Illinois Supreme Court and the Administrative office of the courts should consider development of and provide sufficient funding for state-wide materials to train judges in capital cases, and additional staff to provide research provide. | Not met under current law but see comment* | New York and New Jersey were specifically singled out as each being half of the proposed recommendation but that neither actually meet the proposed recommendation. The federal system likewise approaches but does not meet the standard. |
| Recommendation 37: The Illinois Supreme Court should consider ways in which information regarding relevant law and other resources can be widely disseminated to those trying capital cases, through development of a digest of applicable law by the Supreme Court and wider publican of the outline of issues developed by the State Appellate Defender or the State Appellate Prosecutor and/or Attorney General | Not met under current law but see comment* | New York approaches but does not meet the standard. |
| Recommendation 38: The Illinois Supreme Court, or the chief judge of the various judicial districts throughout the state, should consider implementation of a process to certify judges who are qualified to hear capital cases either by virtue of experience or training. Trial court judges should be certified as qualified to hear capital cases based upon completion of specialized training and based upon their experience in hearing criminal cases. Only such certified judges should hear capital cases. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 39: The [state supreme court] should consider appointment of a standing committee of trial judges and/or appellate justices familiar with capital cases management to provide resources to trial judges throughout the state who are responsible for trying capital cases. | YES | |
| Recommendation 40: The commission supports new Illinois Supreme Court Rule 416(d) regarding qualifications for counsel in capital cases. | Yes | The requirement listed in the Commission is not explicitly met, however, certain mechanisms for qualifying counsel may exist which Attorneys General will argue meet this requirement. |
| Recommendation 41: The Commission supports new Illinois Supreme Court rule Rule 701(b) which imposes the requirement that those appearing as lead or co-counsel in a capital case be first admitted to the Capital Litigation Bar under Rule 714. | Yes | The requirement listed in the Commission is not explicitly met, however, certain mechanisms for qualifying counsel may exist which Attorneys General will argue meet this requirement. |
| Recommendation 42: The commission supports new Illinois Supreme COurt rule 714 which imposes requirements on the qualifications of attorneys handling capital cases | Yes | The requirement listed in the Commission is not explicitly met, however, certain mechanisms for qualifying counsel may exist which Attorneys General will argue meet this requirement. |
| Recommendation 43: The office of the State Appellate Defender should facilitate the dissemination of information with respect to defense counsel qualified under the proposed Supreme Court process. | Not met under current law but see comment | The requirement listed in the Commission is not explicitly met, however, certain mechanisms for qualifying counsel may exist which Attorneys General will argue meet this requirement. |
| Recommendation 44:The commission supports efforts to have training for prosecutors and defenders in capital litigation, and to have funding provided to insure that training programs continue to be of the highest quality. | Not met under current law but see comment | While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement the Commission's language is subjective and ambiguous. The clear intent of the recommendation is not met, in the writer's opinion, by any jurisdiction. |
| Recommendation 45: All prosecutors and defense lawyers who are members of the Capital Trial Bar who are trying capital cases should receive periodic training in the following areas and experts on these subjects should be retained to conduct training and prepare manuals on these topics: (1) The risks of false testimony by in-custody informants ("jailhouse snitches"); (2) The risks of false testimony by accomplice witnesses; (3) The dangers of tunnel vision or confirmatory bias; (4) The risks of wrongful convictions in homicide cases' (5) Police investigative and interrogation methods; (6) Police investigating and reporting of exculpatory evidence; (7) Forensic evidence; and (8) The risks of false confessions. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 46: The Commission supports new Illinois Supreme Court rule 416(e) which permits discovery deposition in capital cases on leave of the court for good cause | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 47: The Commission supports the provisions of the new Illinois SUpreme Court rule 416(f) mandating case management conferences in capital cases. The Illinois SUpreme Court should consider adoption of a rule requiring a final case management conferences in capital cases to insure that there has been compliance with the newly mandated rules, that discovery is complete and that the case is fully prepared for trial. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 48: The Commission supports Illinois Supreme Court RUle 416(g) which requires that a certificate be filed by the state indicating that a conference has been held with all those persons who participated in the investigation or trial preparation of the case and that all the information required to be disclosed has been disclosed. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 49: The Illinois SUpreme Court should adopt a rule defining "exculpatory evidence" in order to provide guidance to counsel in making appropriate disclosures. The commission recommends the following definition: "Exculpatory information includes, but may not be limited, to all information that is material and favorable to the defendant because it tends to: (1) cast doubt on defendant's guilt as to any essential element in any count in the indictment or information; (2) cast doubt on the admissibility of evidence that the state anticipates offering in its case-in-chief that might be subject to a motion to suppress or exclude; (3) cast doubt on the credibility or accuracy of any evidence that the state anticipates offering in its case-in-chief; or (4) diminishes the degree of the defendant's culpability or mitigate the defendant's potential sentence | Not met under current law but see comment | While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement the Commission's language is subjective and ambiguous. The clear intent of the recommendation is not met, in the writer's opinion, by any jurisdiction. |
| Recommendation 50: Illinois law should require that any discussion with a witness or a representative of a witness concerning benefits, potential benefits or detriments conferred on a witness by any prosecutor, police official, or anyone else, should be reduced to writing, and should be disclosed to the defense in advance of trial. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 51: Whenever the state introduce the testimony of an in-custody informant who has agreed to testify for the prosecution in a capital case to a statement allegedly made by the defendant, at either the guilt or sentencing phase, the state should promptly inform the defense as to the identification and background of the witness. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 52: (A) Prior to trial, the trial judge shall hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the reliability and admissibility of the in-custody informant's testimony at either the guilt or sentencing phase; (B) at the pre-evidentiary hearing, the trial judge shall use the following standards: (1) the specific statements to which the witness will testify; (2) the time and place, and other circumstances of the alleged statements; (3) any deal or inducement made by the informant and the police or prosecutor in exchange for the witness' testimony; (4) the comical history of the witness; (5) whether the witless has ever recanted his/her testimony; (6) other cases in which the witness testified to alleged confessions by others; (7) any other evidence that may attest to or diminish the credibility of the witness, including the presence or absence of any relationship between the accused and the witness. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 53: In capital cases courts should closely scrutinize any tactic that misleads the suspect as to the strength of the evidence against him/her, or the likelihood of his/her guilt, in order to determine whether this tactic would be likely to introduce an involuntary or untrustworthy confession. | Not met under current law but see comment | Note: Constitutional law scholars have openly debated whether this is in fact now actually required under existing federal case law. |
| Recommendation 54: The commission makes no recommendation about whether or not plea negotiations should be restricted with respect to the death penalty. | Not met under current law but see comment | The New York COurt of Appeals has addressed this issue and would appear to make New York nonconforming in this regard. |
| Recommendation 55: Expert testimony with respect to the problem associated with eyewitness testimony may be helpful in appropriate cases. Determination as to whether such evidence may be admitted should be resolved by the trial judge on a case by case basis. | YES | Seemingly required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments |
| Recommendation 56: Jury instructions with respect to eyewitness testimony should enumerate factors for the jury to consider, including the difficulty of making a cross-racial identification. The [model jury instructions] should also be amended to add a final sentence which states as follows: Eyewitness testimony should be carefully examined in light of other evidence in the case. | Not met under current law but see comment | While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement the Commission's language is subjective and ambiguous. The clear intent of the recommendation is not met, in the writer's opinion, by the jurisdiction |
| Recommendation 57: The [state committee on pattern criminal jury instructions] should consider a jury instruction providing special caution with respect to the reliability of the testimony of in-custody informants | ? | |
| Recommendation 58: Special jury instruction for when a confession is not recorded | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 59: Illinois courts should continue to reject the results of polygraph examination during the innocence/guilt phase of capital trials. | YES | Seemingly required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments |
| Recommendation 60: The commission supports the new amendments to [Illinois Supreme Court Rule 611] which makes the rules of discovery applicable to the sentencing phase of capital cases. | Not met under current law but see comment | Note: Constitutional law scholars have openly debated whether this is in fact now actually required under existing federal case law. |
| Recommendation 61: The mitigating factors considered by the jury in the death penalty sentencing scheme should be expanded to include the defendant's history of extreme emotional or physical abuse and that the defendant suffers from reduced mental capacity. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 62: The defendant should have the right to make a statement on his own behalf during the aggravation/mitigation phase without being subject to cross-examination. | ? | |
| Recommendation 63: The jury should be instructed as to the alternative sentences that may be imposed in the event that the death penalty is not imposed. | ? | Note: Recent Supreme Court precedents would suggest that this may be required as a matter of federal cosntitutional law |
| Recommendation 64: [The state courts] should continue to reject the results of polygraph examinations during the sentencing phase of capital trials | Yes but see comment | Note: several state appellate courts in the west have held that polygraphs that exonerate the accused are permissible in the penalty phase. |
| Recommendation 65: The statute which establishes the method by which the jury should arrive at its sentence should be amended to include language . . . to make it clear that the jury should weigh factors in the case and reach its own independent conclusion about whether the death penalty should be imposed. The statute should be amended to read as follows: "If the jury unanimously, after weighing the factors in aggravation and mitigation, that death is the appropriate sentence..." | ? | A similar unanimity instruction is requred under state law |
| Recommendation 66: After the jury renders its judgment with respect to the imposition of the death penalty, the trial judge should be required to indicate on the record whether he or she concurs in the result. In cases where the trial judge does not concur in the imposition of the death penalty, the defendant shall be sentenced to natural life as a mandatory alternative (assuming the adoption of a new death penalty scheme limited to five eligibility factors). | ? | |
| Recommendation 67: In any case approved for capital punishment under the new death penalty scheme with five eligibility factors, if the finder of fact determines that death is not the appropriate sentence than the mandatory alternative sentence would be natural life. (dissent) | YES | |
| Recommendation 68: [The state] should adopt a statute which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for those defendants found to be mentally retarded. The best model to follow in terms of specific language is that found in the Tennessee statute. | YES | The death penalty for persons suffering from mental retardation is likely to be struck down this year. |
| Recommendation 69: [The state] should adopt a statute which provides: [a] the uncorroborated testimony of an in-custody informant witness concerning the confession or admission of the defendant may not be the sole basis for the imposition of the death penalty; [b] convictions for murder based upon the testimony of a single eyewitness or accomplice without any other corroboration, should not be death eligible under any circumstances. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 70: In capital cases the [state Supreme Court] should consider on direct appeal (1) whether the sentence was imposed due to some arbitrary factor, (2) whether an independent weighing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances indicates death was the proper sentence, and (3) whether the sentence of death was excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. (dissent) | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 71: Rule 3.8 of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct [ABA Model Rule 3.9], Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, should be amended in paragraph (c) by the addition of [language concerning the ongoing duty to turn over exculpatory information], | Not met under current law but see comment | |
| Recommendation 72: The Post-Conviction Hearing Act should be amended too provide that a petition for a post-conviction proceeding in a capital case should be filed within 6 months after the issuance of the mandate by the supreme court following affirmance of the direct appeal from the trial. | ? | |
| Recommendation 73: The Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act should be amended to provide that in capital cases, the trial court should convene the evidentiary hearing on the petition within one year of the date the petition is filed. | ? | |
| Recommendation 74: The Post-Conviction Hearing Act should be amended to provide that in capital cases, a proceeding may be initiated in cases in which there is newly discovered evidence which offers a substantial basis to believe that the defendant is actually innocent, and such proceed sings should be available at any time following the defendant's conviction regardless of other provisions of the Act limiting the time within such proceedings can be initiated. In order to prevent frivolous petitions, the Act should provide that in proceedings asserting a claim of actual innocence, the court may make an initial determination with or without a hearing that the claim is frivolous. | Not met under current law but see comment | While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement, the practical reality is that bars to successive litigation in each jurisdiction effectively prohibit the recommendation's purpose. |
| Recommendation 75: [State] law should provide that after all appeals have been exhausted and the Attorney General applies for a final execution date for the defendant, a clemency petition may be be filed later than 30 days after the date [after the setting of] an execution date. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 76: Leaders in both the executive and legislative branches should significantly improve the resources available to the criminal justice system in order to permit the meaningful implementation of reforms in capital cases. | Not met under current law but see comment | While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement, the harsh reality is capital defense still remains a patch quilt in each of the listed jurisdictions where luck too often determines who gets what defense attorney or prosecutor |
| Recommendation 77: The Capital Crimes Litigation Act, which is the state statute containing the Capital Litigation Trust Fund and other provisions, should be reauthorized by the general assembly. | N/A | |
| Recommendation 78: The Commission supports the concept articulated in the statute governing the Capital Litigation Trust Fund, that adequate compensation be provided to trial counsel in capital cases for both time and expense, and encourages regular consideration of the hourly rates authorized under the statute to reflect the actual market rates of private attorneys. | Not met under current law but see comment | Compare with paralellel legislation in the appropriate jrisdiction. While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement, the harsh reality is capital defense still remains a patch quilt in each of the listed jurisdictions where luck too often determines who gets what defense attorney or prosecutor |
| Recommendation 79: The provisions of the Capital Litigation Trust Fund should be construed as broadly as possible to insure that public defenders, particularly those in rural parts of the state, can effectively use its provisions to secure additional counsel and reimbursements of all reasonable trial related expenses in capital cases. | Not met under current law but see comment | Compare with paralellel legislation in the appropriate jrisdiction. While every states' Attorney General would like to proclaim that there state meets this requirement, the harsh reality is capital defense still remains a patch quilt in each of the listed jurisdictions where luck too often determines who gets what defense attorney or prosecutor |
| Recommendation 80: The work of the State Appellate Defender's office in providing statewide trial support in capital cases should continue, and funds should be appropriate for this purpose | MET BY ALTERNATE MEANS | |
| Recommendation 81: The Commission supports the recommendation in the Report of the Task Force on Professional Practice in the Illinois justice system to reduce the burden of student loans on those entering criminal justice careers and improve salary levels and pensions contributions for those in the system in order to insure qualified counsel (dissent) | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 82: Adequate funding should be provided by the [state] to all [state] police agencies to pay for the electronic recording equipment, personnel and facilities needed to conduct electronic recordings in homicide cases. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 83: The Commission strongly urges consideration of ways to broaden the application of many of the recommendations made by the commission to improve the criminal justice system as a whole. (dissent) | N/A | |
| Recommendation 84: Information should be collected at the trial level with respect to prosecutions of first degree murder cases, by trial judges, which would detail information that could prove valuable in assessing whether the death penalty is, in fact, being fairly applied. Data should be collected on a form which provides details about the trial, the background of the defendant, and the basis for the sentence imposed. The forms should be collected by the [state's administrative office of the courts] and the form from and individual case should not be a public record. Data collected from the forms should be public and should be maintained in a public access database by the criminal justice information authority. | Not met under current law | |
| Recommendation 85: Judges should be reminded of their obligation under Canon 3 to report violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by prosecutors and defense lawyers. (Dissent) | Not met | |
| Overall rate as of the 5/25 count | 62 NOT MET 10 MET 2 MET W/ QUALIFICATION 8 TO BE FURTHER RESEARCHED 4 NOT APPLICABLE ---25% COMPLIANCE (AT BEST) |
fn 1: These jurisdictions, combined with Arizona, California,
Connetticut, Kentucky & Tennessee, make up the top tier of states
providing the most protection against executing the innocent. Guesstimates
place fellow Northeastern jurisdictions of Pennsylvania & New Hampshire
at the bottom of this list.