Death Penalty Flashcards
Estelle v. Smith*
USSC 1981; 5th, 6th. Performing a psychiatric interview during the capital sentencing phase without advising the defendant of his right to remain silent and of the interview’s non-confidential nature violates the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination and right to counsel. Note: Court did not say a lawyer had to be present during the exam (impractical).
Barefoot v. Estelle*
USSC 1983. Psychiatrists are allowed testify about future dangerousness of capital offenders in the death penalty phase despite the fact that they are incapable of accurately predicting future dangerousness. Also, “weight” of testimony vs. “admissibility” of testimony and responses to hypothetical Qs by experts discussed.
Ake v. Oklahoma*
USSC 1985; 14th DP. Cited “Gideon v. Wainwright.” States must provide indigent criminal defendants with free psychiatric assistance (evaluation) in preparing an insanity defense if the defendant’s sanity at the time of the crime is seriously in question. Also, when a state seeks the death penalty on the ground that the defendant presents a danger to society, an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to psychiatric assistance in rebutting that assertion.
Ford v. Wainwright*
USSC 1986; 8th. 8th Amendment prohibits states from inflicting death penalty on insane prisoners. Found Florida’s statutory procedures for determining competency to be executed were inadequate. Also, cited common law reasons why insane prisoners should not be executed; (1) questionable retributive value, (2) lack of deterrence value, (3) it offends humanity.
Payne v. Tennessee*
USSC 1991; 8th. Victim impact (testimony) can be considered by a jury during capital sentencing. Previous cases “Booth” and “Gathers” were overturned.
State of LA v. Perry*
La. SC 1992; La. Const. In Louisiana, an insane prisoner found incompetent to be executed cannot be forcibly medicated in order to achieve competency. Louisiana Constitution cited- La. citizens have (1) right to privacy and personhood and (2) right against “cruel, excessive, and unusual punishment.” Said prisoner can be executed if he (without medications) regains his sanity upon review of the court.
Atkins v. Virginia*
USSC 2002. Two men abduct, rob, and kill a man. The defendant specifically involved in this case is found to have an IQ of 59. He is sentenced to death. Va. SC orders a 2nd sentencing hearing. State presents a rebuttal witness who says man is average intelligence and has ASPD. Defendant appeals to Va. SC on grounds that he is MR and therefore should not be put to death. VaSC affirms lower court ruling and defendant appeals to USSC. USSC in a 6-3 decision reverses and remands stating that executions of the mentally retarded constitute “cruel & unusual” punishment and violates the 8th amendment. This decision overturned Penry v Lynaugh (1989) which said executing the mentally retarded was okay. They granted cert. to this case to reexamine the issue in light of the new shift in thinking of the country.
Ring v. Arizona*
USSC 2002. 6th. Man and two other colleagues rob an armored van and kill the driver. Man was convicted of felony murder. At sentencing, the prosecution presented man’s former colleague as a witness (accepted a plea deal) and he identified the man has the leader. Judge sentenced man to death. Az law allowed the trial judge to determine sentencing. Az law also forbade death penalty if there were mitigating factors. Case had two aggravating and one mitigating factor. Man appeals on 6th and 14th. USSC held that a death sentence where the necessary aggravating factors are determined by a judge violates the 6th amendment right to a trial by jury. Case was reversed and remanded. Overruled “Walton v. Arizona” and violated stare decisis.
