Category: Death Penalty

Two Big and Unanimous Wins for the Death Penalty

by · Aug 26, 2021 11:41 am

Congratulations to Mike and Kent for their work that paid off today in a unanimous California Supreme Court ruling rejecting an audacious, broad-brush challenge to the state’s death penalty.

The CJLF press release starts:

In a unanimous decision announced today, the California Supreme Court rejected a double-murderer’s claim that the state has misapplied its death penalty law since it was enacted 42 years ago, invalidating every death sentence handed down since 1978.

Specifically, Donte Lamont McDaniel argued that the law required sentencing juries to find each aggravating factor of a murder true beyond a reasonable doubt and find that a death sentence is appropriate beyond a reasonable doubt, but that no court has ever complied with those requirements.

 

Continue reading . . .

Asking the Correct Question in a Death Penalty Poll

by · Aug 17, 2021 8:33 pm

I have long been critical on this blog of the way major polling organizations phrase their questions on the death penalty. Professors Joseph Bessette and Andrew Sinclair of Claremont McKenna College have done it right. They have this article at Real Clear Policy explaining their work and results. The full technical report is here. (Hint: no one familiar with my prior posts will be surprised at the results.) Continue reading . . .

Merrick Garland Suspends Use of the Federal Death Penalty

by · Jul 2, 2021 8:12 pm

Attorney General Merrick Garland yesterday announced that he is suspending use of the federal death penalty:

“The Department of Justice must ensure that everyone in the federal criminal justice system is not only afforded the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States, but is also treated fairly and humanely,” said Attorney General Garland. “That obligation has special force in capital cases.”

What to make of this announcement, and of its timing?

Continue reading . . .

Ineffective Assistance, Strategic Decisions, and Making a Record

by · Jul 2, 2021 11:35 am

The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its October 2020 Term with a summary reversal of a federal court of appeals decision for — you guessed it — giving the state court insufficient credit as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s so-called “deference” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This time it was the Eleventh Circuit, further undermining my old “circuits divisible by three” rule.

The twist in Dunn v. Reeves, No. 20-1084 is that the Eleventh had based its holding on Justice Sotomayor’s dissent from denial of certiorari earlier in the same case. The unsigned opinion of the Court rebukes the Eleventh for its failure to properly observe § 2254(d), noting that the case is in a different posture on habeas corpus than on the Supreme Court’s direct review of a state court decision. Despite that difference, Justice Sotomayor is livid, with a dissent as long as the opinion of the Court. Continue reading . . .

The Marathon Bomber Briefs

by · Jun 18, 2021 10:38 am

We put the finishing touches on CJLF’s friend-of-the-court brief in the Marathon Bomber case yesterday. Links will be available to the PDF version here and on our main website Monday after it is filed.

As Bill noted Tuesday, the Government followed through with a brief on the merits seeking reinstatement of the death sentence despite the present Administration’s anti-death-penalty stance. It does appear that the political types stepped back and let the pros do their job. They produced a brief up to the high standards of the Solicitor General’s Office–thoroughly researched and well-written. Continue reading . . .

The Stench Gets Some Air Freshener

by · Jun 15, 2021 7:44 am

Yesterday, I wrote that the stench of politics had taken hold at the Justice Department when, at the last minute, it decided to deep-six a brief supporting the sound analysis of the Eleventh Circuit in a crack cocaine sentencing case and argue instead that the overall “intent” of two leniency-oriented statutes, the Fair Sentencing Act and the First Step Act, should displace their plain text.  A unanimous SCOTUS made short work of DOJ’s lame appeal to duck the words Congress chose in favor of a more Oprah Winfrey-like approach.  The only conceivable reason for the Department’s unprincipled, embarrassing and (fortunately) futile action was politics  —   specifically, that pro-drug and pro-criminal elements in the President’s political base simply wanted what they wanted.  That DOJ at its highest levels would so easily be chased away from a sober approach to its legal obligations is alarming.

I’m happy to report that, today, we saw a different face.

Continue reading . . .

Pew Research Has Big News on the Death Penalty

by · Jun 3, 2021 12:14 pm

Here are the opening paragraphs of this story, reported by the NYT:

For the first time in almost half a century, support for the death penalty has dipped below 50 percent in the United States.

Just 49 percent of Americans say they support capital punishment, according to a Pew Research Center poll … That represents a seven-point decline in about a year and a half. Support peaked at 80 percent in 1994.

The death penalty has had majority support among Americans for 45 years. The last time support was as low as it now stands was in 1971.

Not good news for the folks on my side of the issue.  But wait, there’s a catch.

Continue reading . . .

More Coverage on the CA Death Penalty Case

by · Jun 3, 2021 10:31 am

LA Times reporter Maura Dolan has this comprehensive piece on the California Supreme Court’s oral argument in People v. McDaniel.  The question before the court is whether or not the law requires that a jury decide beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant should get the death penalty or life without parole, and the jury must also be unanimous in deciding the reasons for a capital verdict?  This requirement has never been part of the law or any accepted precedent.  If the court agreed, a ruling would probably throw out hundreds, if not all, previous death sentences in California.  An important takeaway from yesterday’s argument was the questioning of the murderer’s lawyer by Justice Goodwin Liu, a key liberal member of the Court, who asked if it is possible  “that this issue has simply been missed this entire time? For 150 years, we have missed this issue?”

California Supreme Court Hears Argument Challenging Death Penalty Law

by · Jun 2, 2021 11:55 am

The California Supreme Court heard oral argument today in People v. McDaniel.  Donte McDaniel was convicted in 2009 of two brutal murders and attempted murder on two others.  In 2004, McDaniel and his accomplice entered a woman’s Los Angeles apartment looking for a man who had stolen drugs from another member of the gang he belongs to, the Bounty Hunter Bloods (BHB). McDaniel began firing as he walked in the door, shooting and killing the woman, then shooting the man he was looking for  so may times in the head that his face collapsed.  He shot two other women in the apartment, not involved in the drug dispute, critically injuring them both and leaving them permanently disabled.

Continue reading . . .

The Death Penalty Is Dying…….Oh…….Wait………………

by · May 12, 2021 8:48 pm

For years, we’ve been told that “the death penalty is dying.”  And it’s true that, as the murder rate fell by more than 50% over a generation (1990-2014), support for death sentences likewise fell substantially (although not as much, from 80% in the mid-Nineties to 55% today (still a bigger share of popular support than Joe Biden got)).  The number of executions also substantially fell, but is hardly disappearing, since over the last five years, we’ve averaged one execution every 17 days (see this bar graph).

So it’s just not true that the death penalty is dying.  It became less frequent as the need for it became less frequent, sure.  This is news?  But the reason for its persistence is no big mystery.  It’s not that America is a primitive, vindictive country.  It’s not that we are callous or sadistic.  It’s that there continue to be gruesome, atrocious murders for which a jail sentence, no matter what its length, would not strike a normal person as fitting the crime.  The most recent example comes from a county and state that were crucial in President Trump’s defeat.

Continue reading . . .