CJLF has filed an amicus brief in the case where a federal district judge ruled that the long delays in executing murderers in California are a violation of the defendant's rights. The delays are a violation, of course, but not of the defendant's rights. The delays are a violation of the rights of the victims, which includes the family of deceased victims, under both a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and the California Constitution, Article I § 28. The remedy is for judges both state and federal to get off their duffs, stop tolerating stalling by the defense, and move these cases along.
If Virginia can execute the D.C. Sniper in less than six years from sentence to execution, other states can do the same no matter how complex the case. In the rare case of actual doubt that we have the right guy, fine, delay as long as it takes to eliminate the doubt, and commute the sentence if it can't be eliminated. In all other cases, i.e., the vast majority of cases, there is no need to delay more than six years. That is plenty of time to resolve all genuine claims.
After all, if we know to a certainty that the defendant is a murderer, there is no possibility of a miscarriage of justice in the sentence. The question in the penalty phase is whether to give him what he deserves as a matter of justice or let him off with less as an exercise of mercy. That is an important question, and its decision must be made carefully and reviewed carefully, but the outcome cannot be an injustice to the defendant.
The idea that we need to spend more time and resources reviewing the sentences of certainly guilty murderers sentenced to death than we spend reviewing the convictions of possibly innocent people sentenced to life in prison is absurd.
If Virginia can execute the D.C. Sniper in less than six years from sentence to execution, other states can do the same no matter how complex the case. In the rare case of actual doubt that we have the right guy, fine, delay as long as it takes to eliminate the doubt, and commute the sentence if it can't be eliminated. In all other cases, i.e., the vast majority of cases, there is no need to delay more than six years. That is plenty of time to resolve all genuine claims.
After all, if we know to a certainty that the defendant is a murderer, there is no possibility of a miscarriage of justice in the sentence. The question in the penalty phase is whether to give him what he deserves as a matter of justice or let him off with less as an exercise of mercy. That is an important question, and its decision must be made carefully and reviewed carefully, but the outcome cannot be an injustice to the defendant.
The idea that we need to spend more time and resources reviewing the sentences of certainly guilty murderers sentenced to death than we spend reviewing the convictions of possibly innocent people sentenced to life in prison is absurd.
A procedural note: In a federal habeas corpus case, "the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2005). Ron Davis is now the warden of San Quentin and thus is automatically substituted as the respondent for the departed Kevin Chappell.
I read the brief.
I have one question: Does anyone in the world know more about capital case federal habeas law than Kent? Anyone?
The guy is a literal legal encyclopedia on the subject. Very impressive!
Hopefully, Kent's arguments will not fall on deaf ears.
"Does anyone in the world know more about capital case federal habeas law than Kent? Anyone?"
In a word, no.
Defense lawyers are constantly whining about unfairness. For the most part, it's so much baloney. But there is one thing that actually IS unfair: Their trying to take on a Kent Scheidegger brief.
The contest is so uneven it makes you want to look away.
If the California delays are the fault of the federal courts, not the state, what causes the federal courts in places like Virginia not to present the same obstacles?
What causes "stay and abeyance" at federal courts to be abused in California but, apparently, not elsewhere?
In cases like Bittaker, languishing for nine years, is it not the responsibility of the prosecutor/state to bring this to the attention of the court and its Chief Judge? What was the response when that happened?
The politics of appointment of federal judges causes some states to have more defendant-friendly judges than others. In California, some absolutely awful appointments from the Carter Administration plague us to this day. Since then, we have tended to get more-liberal judges in Democratic Administrations and less-conservative ones in Republican Administrations than the national average.
The resulting irony for federal habeas corpus review of state criminal judgments is that such judgments get the most exacting scrutiny in the states where it is least needed.
BTW, since Google doesn't give you a recognizable user name, please adopt a handle and "sign" your comments in the text, so all can see which comments come from the same person.
>> The politics of appointment of federal judges causes some states to have more defendant-friendly judges than others.
Is this quantifiable in some way?
It makes sense, to some extent. To win confirmation, federal judicial appointments are filtered through a state's U.S. Senators, even when they are not members of the President's party.
In California's case, is it clear the usual political divides hold up? For 20 years-plus it has had the same two Senators. Although liberal Democrats, at various times both have actually been outspoken death penalty supporters. Nevertheless, we should believe Feinstein and Boxer have been enabling judicial appointees with views that are shifted to the left, and therefore generally hostile to the Senators' views on capital punishment?
Where does Judge Carney [author of Jones v. Chappell] fit this model? He was nominated by George H.W. Bush but got through the Senate at a time when both Boxer and Feinstein were Senators, either of whom presumably could have blocked his confirmation -- But 21 years later he authored a decision that seems hostile to their death penalty views...
Patrick - law student researching Jones v Chappell
That's my impression based on experience. I haven't attempted to quantify it and don't plan to.
California's senators tend to influence judicial appointments in a generally liberal direction. I doubt very much that either of them focuses on the death penalty.
If you believe Senator Boxer's facade of pretending to support the death penalty, can I interest you in a really good deal on the Golden Gate Bridge?
What you can do is look at the number of times a particular judge has either authored or joined an opinion that was summarily reversed by the Supreme Court by per curiam opinion. The Ninth Circuit has a lot with multiple reversals, and they are generally of the 'rat persuasion.