Death Penalty Flashcards
Atkins v Virginia
(USSC) it is unconstitutional (8A cruel and unusual punishment) to execute a person with intellectual disability.
USSC had recently ruled the other way (Penry v Lynaugh), but claimed the “standard of decency” had changed, violating stare decesis.
Hall v FL
(USSC) FL’s precise cutoff of 70 IQ to determine ID was unconstitutional. Must take into account the standard of error.
Moore v TX
States can’t make up their own arbitrary standards for determining ID.
TX’s “Brassano factors” based on Lenny of from Of Mice and Men. Determinations of ID must be informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.
Roper v Simmons
In 2005, USSC reset the minimum age for death penalty to 18 at the time of the crime.
Simmons planned to murder someone before he turned 18 to avoid death penalty, broke into trailer expecting to murder a man, Shirley Cook woke up, recognized Simmons from a MVA, so he tied and gagged her and threw her in the river instead, then went and bragged about it.
8A cruel and unusual punishment, “evolving standards of decency” (stare decisis reversing Stanford holding)
National standard for competency to be sentenced
There is no national standard
Estelle v Smith
Sneaky Dr Grigson was appointed to do competency eval unbeknownst to defense counsel, then testified as to his future dangerousness, resulting in death sentence.
Violated 5A (wasn’t advised that what he said in competency eval could be used in sentencing phase) and 6A (ineffective assistance of counsel bc atty didn’t know and would have advised him not to talk).
Barefoot v Estelle
Barefoot killed cop. Grigson testified without examining him, based on hypotheticals, that a person like him would be dangerous. Jury imposed death penalty.
It is not unconstitutional to give an opinion based on hypotheticals. (Not excluded in other cases, so not excluded in death penalty cases.)
APA submitted amicus brief arguing we shouldn’t be predicting dangerousness at all, since we’re wrong 2 of 3 times, but court said we still have useful info to give even if we’re usually wrong.
Ake v Oklahoma
Ake and Hatch broke into a home and brutally murdered parents in front of their children, trued to kill kids, but they escaped. Was found incompetent and sent to a hospital.
USSC determined he had a right to a state-appointed and funded sanity evaluation, and a mental health eval during sentencing phase as well.
Buck v Davis
In TX, Buck killed gf and her friend, and was convicted. Defense expert Dr Quijano testified that his Black race was one of the factors that made him dangerous. Prosecutor used that in closing, and jury sentenced him to death.
USSC held that race cannot be considered in death sentencing and that was a 6A violation (ineffective assistance of counsel).
Payne v TN
Victim impact statements are not unconstitutional.
Purvis Payne brutally murdered a mom and daughter and stabbed 3yo Nicholas Christopher 12x. Nicholas’ gma was allowed to testify about its impact on him.
USSC had previously ruled victim impact statements were not allowed in death penalty cases (Booth v Maryland and South Carolina v Gathers), but violated stare decisis.
Ford v Wainwright
USSC 1986
Ford was too psychotic to understand why he was to be executed.
It is unconstitutional to execute someone incompetent to be executed. (8A cruel and unusual) There is no standard, but Justice Powell suggested the person should:
1. Be aware they are being executed.
2. Understand why they are being executed.
Madison v Alabama
Madison shot officer and gf, then had strokes causing amnesia for the crime.
Crime amnesia alone does not, per se, render a person incompetent to be executed. Must evaluate the Ford v Wainwright factors. Also, dementia can be considered as a factor in incompetence (not just psychosis as in Ford’s case).
State v Perry
Louisiana Supreme Court 1992
Held Perry could not be medicated against his will solely to restore competency to be executed.
The Court distinguished Perry from Washington v Harper in that forcing drugs merely “to facilitate… execution does not constitute medical tx but is antithetical to the basic principles of the healing arts.”
Also found it violated 8A and the right to privacy guaranteed in the Louisiana Constitution.
USSC has not ruled on constitutionality of invol medicating a death row inmate for the purpose of rendering them competent to be executed.
Panetti v Quarterman
USSC 2007
Held the State failed to provide appropriate procedures to evaluate Mr. Panetti’s competency to be executed and that the standard articulated by Justice Powell in Ford v Wainwright did not include consideration of a prisoner’s delusional interference with “rational understanding” of his execution, even if he had an “awareness” of the execution and the State’s stated reasons for it.
Panetti claimed the State’s real reason for executing him was to prevent him from preaching the Gospel.
“volunteering”
waiving the right to appeal a death sentence
motivations may include
- mental illness
- desire to obtain relief from depression 2/2 being on death row
- accepting responsibility
- gaining relief from stress caused by not knowing exactly when the execution will occur
