DEATH ROW U.S.A.

[Pages:62]DEATH ROW U.S.A.

Winter 2020

A quarterly report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Deborah Fins Consultant to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2020

(As of January 1, 2020)

TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF:

2620 (2,620 ? 189* - 906M = 1525 enforceable sentences)

Race of Defendant: White Black Latino/Latina Native American Asian Unknown at this issue

1,103 1,089

353 27 47 1

(42.10%) (41.56%) (13.47%) (1.03%) (1.79%) (0.04%)

Gender: Male Female

2,567 53

(97.98%) (2.02%)

JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 31

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, ColoradoM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, OregonM, PennsylvaniaM, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military.

M States where a moratorium prohibiting execution has been imposed by the Governor.

JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES:

22

Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire [see note below], New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

[NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively. The man already sentenced remains under sentence of death.]

* Designates the number of people in non-moratorium states who are not under active death sentence because of court reversal but whose sentence may be reimposed. M Designates the number of people in states where a gubernatorial moratorium on execution has been imposed.

Death Row U.S.A. Page 1

In the United States Supreme Court

Update to Fall 2019 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2019

1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

Fourth Amendment

Kansas v. Glover, No. 18-556 (Vehicle stop, reasonable suspicion) (decision below 422 P.3d 64 (Kan. 2018))

Question Presented: For purposes of an investigative stop under the 4th Amendment is it reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary?

Torres v. Madrid, No.19-292 (Parameter of "seizure") (decision below 769 Fed.Appx. 654 (10th Cir. 2019))

Question Presented: Is an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force a "seizure" within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, as the 8th, 9th, and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or must physical force be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a "seizure," as the 10th Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals hold?

Sixth Amendment

Ramos v. Louisiana, No 18-5924 (Unanimous verdict guarantee) (decision below 231 So.3d 44 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017))

Question Presented: Does the 14th Amendment fully incorporate the 6th Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict?

Eighth Amendment

Kahler v. Kansas, No.18-6135 (Insanity defense) (decision below 410 P.3d 105 (Kan. 2018)) Question Presented: Do the 8th and 14th Amendments permit a state to abolish the

insanity defense?

Mathena v. Malvo, No. 18-217 (Interpretation of retroactivity decision) (decision below 893 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2018))

Question Presented: Did the 4th Circuit err in concluding -- in direct conflict with Virginia's highest court and other courts -- that a decision of this Court (Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)), addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision (Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)), applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question?

McKinney v. Arizona, No. 18-1109 (Application of capital law and resentencing) (decision below 426 P.3d 1204 (Ariz. 2018))

Question Presented: 1) Was the Arizona Supreme Court required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted? 2) Does the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), require resentencing?

Death Row U.S.A. Page 2

Fourteenth Amendment

Ramos v. Louisiana, No 18-5924 (Unanimous verdict guarantee) (decision below 231 So.3d 44 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017))

Question Presented: Does the 14th Amendment fully incorporate the 6th Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict?

2. CASES RAISING HABEAS CORPUS QUESTIONS

Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943 (Successive habeas petition) (decision below 5/8/2018 CTA 5 ORDER)

Question Presented (By the Court): Whether and under what circumstances should a timely Rule 59 (e) motion be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)?

3. CASES RAISING OTHER IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTIONS

Carpenter v. Murphy, No. 17-1107 (Jurisdiction, "Indian reservation") (decision below 875 F.3d 896 (10th Cir. 2017))

Question Presented: Do the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an "Indian reservation" today under 18 U.S.C. ? 1151 (a)?

Hernandez v. Mesa, No. 17-1678 (Bivens claim against "rogue" federal officer) (decision below 885 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 2018))

Question Presented: When plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established 4th and 5th Amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, can and should the federal courts recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)?

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, No. 18-7739 (Necessity of formal objection for "reasonableness review" of sentence) (decision below 746 Fed.Appx. 403 (5th Cir. 2018))

Question Presented: Is a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant's sentence?

McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 (State court jurisdiction in "Indian Country") (decision below pc-2018-1057 (OK CCA 2019))

Question Presented: Can Oklahoma courts continue to unlawfully exercise, under state law, criminal jurisdiction as "justiciable matter" in Indian Country over Indians accused of major crimes enumerated under the Indian Major Crimes Act - which are under exclusive federal jurisdiction?

Walker v. United States, No. 19-373 (Mens rea) (decision below 769 Fed.Appx. 195 (6th Cir. 2019))

Question Presented: Can a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness qualify as a ''violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. ? 924(e)?

Death Row U.S.A. Page 3

Execution Update

As of January 1, 2020

Total number of executions since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment:

1512

Race of defendants executed

total number 1512

White

845 (55.89%)

Black

517 (34.19%)

Latino/a

127 (8.40%)

Native American

16 (1.06%)

Asian

7 (0.46%)

Gender of defendants executed

Female

16 (1.06%)

Male

1496 (98.94%)

Race of victims

total number 2206

White

1668

Black

339

Latin

153

Native American

5

Asian

41

(75.61%) (15.37%)

(6.94%) (0.23%) (1.86%)

Female Male

Gender of victims

1084 (49.14%) 1122 (50.86%)

Defendant-victim racial combinations

White Victim

Black Victim Latino/a Victim

White Defendant Black Defendant Latino/a Defendant Asian Defendant Native Amer. Def.

TOTAL:

781 292

55 2

14 1144

51.65% 21 19.31% 176

3.64% 3 0.13% 0

.93% 0 75.66% 200

1.39% 18 11.64% 20

0.20% 61 0% 0 0% 0

13.23% 99

1.19% 1.32% 4.03%

0% 0% 6.55%

Asian Victim

6

0.40%

16

1.06%

2

0.13%

5

0.33%

0

0%

29

1.92%

Native American

Victim

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

2

0.13%

2

0.13%

Note: In addition, there were 38 defendants executed for the murders of multiple victims of different races. Of those, 21 defendants were white, 11 black and 6 Latino. (2.51%)

Death Row U.S.A. Page 4

Execution Breakdown by State

State # % of Total

Racial Combinations

(see codes below)

1. TX 567 37.50 225 W/W (40%); 109 B/W (19%); 67 B/B (12%); 55 L/L

(10%); 45 L/W (8%); 18 B/L (3%); 13 W/L, 10 B/A ( 2% each); 6 W/mix (1%); 4 W/B (.7%); 3 L/mix (.5%); 2 L/B, 2 L/A, 2 A/A, 2 N/W, 2 W/A, 2 B/mix (.4% each)

28* 13# 6^

2. VA 113

7.47 48 W/W (43%); 36 B/W (32%); 13 B/B (12%); 4 W/B, 4 W/mix (4% EACH); 3 L/W (3%); 1 B/L, 1 B/A, 1 W/A, 1 A/W, 1 B/mix (.9% each)

10* 3# 1^

3. OK 112

7.41 61 W/W (55%); 17 B/W (15%); 14 B/B (13%); 5 N/W (5%); 3 7* 2# 3^ W/A (3%); 2 W/B, 2 B/A, 2 A/A, 2 W/mix (2% each); 1 N/N, 1 W/L, 1 B/L, 1 L/L (.9% each)

4. FL 99 6.55 58 W/W (59%); 18 B/W (18%); 8 B/B (8%); 4 L/W (4%); 3 10*

2^

W/mix (3% each); 2 L/L, 2 B/mix (2% each); 1 N/W, 1 L/B, 1

W/L, 1 L/mix (1% each)

5. MO 89

5.89 53 W/W (60%); 17 B/W, 17 B/B (19% each); 1 N/W, 1 W/B (1% each)

5* 1#

6. GA 75 4.96 47 W/W (63%); 18 B/W (24%); 10 B/B (13%)

1* 2# 1^

7. AL 66 4.37 37 W/W (56%); 17 B/W (26%); 10 B/B (15%); 1 W/B, 1

7*

1^

B/mix (2% each)

8. OH 56

3.70 34 W/W (61%); 8 B/W, 8 B/B (14% each); 2 W/mix, 2 B/mix 6* (4% each); 1 B/A, 1 W/B (2% each)

9. NC 43 2.84 28 W/W (65%); 7 B/B (16%); 6 B/W (14%); 1 W/B, 1 N/N

4*

1^

(2% each)

10. SC 43 2.84 20 W/W (47%); 11 B/W (26%); 5 W/B (12%); 4 B/B (9%); 2 10* 1# W/mix (5%); 1 B/A (2%)

11. AZ 37 2.45 27 W/W (73%); 3 L/L (8%); 2 N/W (5%); 1 B/W, 1 L/W, 1

5*

W/L, 1 W/mix, 1 L/mix (3% each)

12. AR 31 2.05 20 W/W (65%); 7 B/W (23%); 3 B/B (10%); 1 L/W (3%)

4*

1^

13. LA 28 1.85 15 W/W (54%); 8 B/W (29%); 5 B/B (18%)

1* 1#

14. MS 21 1.39 14 W/W (67%); 3 B/W (14%); 2 B/B (10%); 1 B/A 1 W/B

1*

(5% each)

15. IN 20 1.32 16 W/W (80%); 2 B/W (10%); 1 B/B, 1 W/L (5% each)

4*

16. DE 16 1.06 8 W/W (50%); 5 B/B (31%); 2 B/W (13%); 1 N/W (6%)

5*

17. CA 13

.86 7 W/W (54%); 2 N/W (15%); 1 B/W, 1 W/L, 1 A/A, 1 B/mix 2* (8% each)

18. IL 12

.79 7 W/W (58%); 2 B/W, 2 B/mix (17% each); 1 B/B (8%)

2*

19. NV 12

.79 9 W/W (75%); 1 B/W, 1 L/W, 1 A/W (8% each)

11*

Death Row U.S.A. Page 5

State

20. TN 21. UT 22. MD 23. SD 24. WA 25. NE 26. ID 27. KY 28. MT 29. PA 30. US 31. OR 32. CO 33. CT 34. NM 35. WY

# % of Total

Racial Combinations

12

.79 11 W/W (92%); 1 B/B (8%)

7

.46 5 W/W (71%); 2 B/W (29%)

5

.33 3 B/W (60%); 2 W/W (40%)

5

.33 5 W/W (100%)

5

.33 5 W/W (100%)

4

.26 2 W/W (50%); 2 B/W (50%)

3

.20 3 W/W (100%)

3

.20 3 W/W (100%)

3

.20 3 W/W (100%)

3

.20 2 W/W (67%); 1 W/B (33%)

3

.20 1 W/mix (33%); 1 L/mix (33%); 1 B/W (33%)

2

.13 2 W/W (100%)

1

.07 1 W/W (100%)

1

.07 1 W/W (100%)

1

.07 1 W/W (100%)

1

.07 1 W/W (100%)

(see codes below)

1* 4* 1* 4* 3* 1* 1* 2* 1* 3* 1* 2*

1* 1*

*

Defendants who gave up their appeals (149; 10% of total) [see note to 1049 below]

#

Juveniles (under age 18 at the time of the offense) (23; 2% of total) [see note to 740, below]

^

Female (16; 1% of total)

DATE OF EXECUTION 01-17-77 05-25-79 10-22-79 03-09-81 08-10-82 12-07-82 04-22-83 09-02-83 11-30-83 12-14-83 12-15-83 01-26-84

ROSTER OF THE EXECUTED

NAME OF DEFENDANT/ NUMBER IF MULTIPLE VICTIMS 1. Gary Gilmore [*] 2. John Spenkelink 3. Jesse Bishop [*] 4. Steven Judy [*] / 3 5. Frank Coppola [*] 6. Charlie Brooks 7. John Evans 8. Jimmy Lee Gray 9. Robert Sullivan 10. Robert W. Williams 11. John Eldon Smith / 2 12. Anthony Antone

STAT

E

UT FL NV IN VA TX AL MS FL LA GA FL

RACE DEF / VICTIM

W/W W/W W/W W/3W W/W B/W W/W W/W W/W B/B W/2W W/W

VICTIM GENDER M M M FFF F M M F M M MF M

Death Row U.S.A. Page 6

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download