Innocence Project Report on Willingham: At Homicide Survivors, Dudley Sharp refutes multiple misstatements in the Innocence Project's report on the Willingham case.
Wood v. Allen Argument Preview: At SCOTUSblog, Tiffany Cartwright, a 3L at Stanford Law School, previews Wood v. Allen. The case addresses how a federal court should review the state court's finding of facts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Wood was convicted for murdering his ex-girlfriend and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the state courts rejected his petition for postconviction relief, in which he alleged that his trial counsel's failure to investigate and present evidence of his mental impairments during sentencing constituted ineffective assistance. He filed a habeas petition and the district court granted relief because it believed the "finding by the state courts that a strategic decision was made not to investigate or introduce . . . evidence of mental retardation is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the clear and convincing evidence presented in the record." The Eleventh Circuit reversed. Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, Cartwright notes that Wood's first argument is different from the question presented in his cert. petition, i.e., that relief may be granted because the state court decision was an unreasonable application of the Court's decisions in Strickland v. Washington and Wiggins v. Smith. Alabama's brief urges the Court to disregard this argument because because it is not the question presented, and it is also without merit. CJLF also filed a brief in Wood. It can be found here, along with Kent's other posts on the case (here, here and here). The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next Wednesday, November 4th.
More Death Penalty Delay in Ohio: Doug Berman reports on Sentencing Law and Policy that Ohio is having a hard time finding doctors to help revise its lethal injection protocol. Berman links to an Associated Press article by Andrew Welsh-Huggins that reports ethical and professional rules are deterring doctors and nurses from speaking publicly or privately about alternatives to the state's lethal injection process. Attorney General Richard Cordray has said that it has been difficult to identify qualified medical personnel willing and able to provide advice to the state regarding lethal injection. This is nothing new, North Carolina has had to address similar issues in the past. There is one fairly recent factual development (although relatively old-hat request) mentioned in the article. According to Welsh-Huggins, last Friday the European Union asked Ohio's governor not to execute Broom and to temporarily halt all executions in Ohio.
Less Punishment = Less Crime?: Over the weekend Volokh Conspiracy opened up its blog to UCLA Public Policy Professor Mark Kleiman, so that he could present his thoughts on How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment. In his post, Kleiman argues that "brute force" has not helped America control crime, and believes that now is the time for Americans to start thinking about new ways to control our crime rate. In Kleiman's view, "[p]unishment should be swift and certain rather than severe; those subject to it should know precisely what actions will lead to punishment; efforts should be concentrated, rather than dispersed, to enjoy the benefit of the positive-feedback process in which reduced offending leads to increased deterrence." The argument is typical of the claim that better enforcement and sufficient punishment are somehow opposed, and we must choose between them. It is a false dilemma. We would need to cut one to boost the other only if everything else government does is higher priority than public safety, and there is nowhere else in the entire budget to cut. We all know that is not true.
Wood v. Allen Argument Preview: At SCOTUSblog, Tiffany Cartwright, a 3L at Stanford Law School, previews Wood v. Allen. The case addresses how a federal court should review the state court's finding of facts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Wood was convicted for murdering his ex-girlfriend and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the state courts rejected his petition for postconviction relief, in which he alleged that his trial counsel's failure to investigate and present evidence of his mental impairments during sentencing constituted ineffective assistance. He filed a habeas petition and the district court granted relief because it believed the "finding by the state courts that a strategic decision was made not to investigate or introduce . . . evidence of mental retardation is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the clear and convincing evidence presented in the record." The Eleventh Circuit reversed. Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, Cartwright notes that Wood's first argument is different from the question presented in his cert. petition, i.e., that relief may be granted because the state court decision was an unreasonable application of the Court's decisions in Strickland v. Washington and Wiggins v. Smith. Alabama's brief urges the Court to disregard this argument because because it is not the question presented, and it is also without merit. CJLF also filed a brief in Wood. It can be found here, along with Kent's other posts on the case (here, here and here). The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next Wednesday, November 4th.
More Death Penalty Delay in Ohio: Doug Berman reports on Sentencing Law and Policy that Ohio is having a hard time finding doctors to help revise its lethal injection protocol. Berman links to an Associated Press article by Andrew Welsh-Huggins that reports ethical and professional rules are deterring doctors and nurses from speaking publicly or privately about alternatives to the state's lethal injection process. Attorney General Richard Cordray has said that it has been difficult to identify qualified medical personnel willing and able to provide advice to the state regarding lethal injection. This is nothing new, North Carolina has had to address similar issues in the past. There is one fairly recent factual development (although relatively old-hat request) mentioned in the article. According to Welsh-Huggins, last Friday the European Union asked Ohio's governor not to execute Broom and to temporarily halt all executions in Ohio.
Less Punishment = Less Crime?: Over the weekend Volokh Conspiracy opened up its blog to UCLA Public Policy Professor Mark Kleiman, so that he could present his thoughts on How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment. In his post, Kleiman argues that "brute force" has not helped America control crime, and believes that now is the time for Americans to start thinking about new ways to control our crime rate. In Kleiman's view, "[p]unishment should be swift and certain rather than severe; those subject to it should know precisely what actions will lead to punishment; efforts should be concentrated, rather than dispersed, to enjoy the benefit of the positive-feedback process in which reduced offending leads to increased deterrence." The argument is typical of the claim that better enforcement and sufficient punishment are somehow opposed, and we must choose between them. It is a false dilemma. We would need to cut one to boost the other only if everything else government does is higher priority than public safety, and there is nowhere else in the entire budget to cut. We all know that is not true.
Leave a comment