Doubts over a Murder Accessory’s Involvement in Crime Stays Execution

Almost six days before execution, a man on death row is receiving habeas corpus review over the extent of his participation in a murder, testing the limits of accomplice accountability in capital cases

In re Wood, 2016 BL 271533, Tex. Crim. App., No. WR-45,500-02, 8/19/16.

   The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed an execution of an accomplice in a murder, granting habeas corpus review of the defendant’s case. The habeas court is directed to review whether the defendant received due process because of falsified testimony and scientific evidence. More importantly, however, the court was directed to examine the “party theory” of liability in capital cases, noting that the death penalty should be reexamined because of “shifting societal views.”

    Under Texas criminal law, criminals convicted under the “party theory” of liability can face the death penalty only if they actively participated in “a violent felony where loss of life was foreseeable or if they acted with reckless indifference to human life.” Under the current set of jury instructions, a jury can convict someone of capital murder if they acted as a party by aiding or abetting another person to commit the offense, or in the alternative, if they acted with the intent to commit robbery and another person was killed as a result with evidence pointing to the defendant’s anticipation that death would have resulted. 

   The trial could have implications for accomplice accountability in capital murder sentencing.

http://src.bna.com/hWr

Delaware’s Death Penalty is Unconstitutional Due to its Sentencing Procedures

After reviewing Delaware’s sentencing procedures, its supreme court ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional because judges have too much power to make factual findings during sentencing

Rauf v. State, 2016 BL 249274, Del., No. 39, 8/2/16.

   The Delaware Supreme Court held that its state’s death penalty was unconstitutional because a sentencing judge had too much power in making factual findings, thereby violating the Sixth Amendment. The ruling follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Hurst v. Florida, which required juries, not judges, to decide the facts of the case necessary to justify the death penalty. The court stated that “the Sixth Amendment right to a jury includes a right not to be executed unless a jury concludes unanimously that it has no reasonable doubt that is the appropriate sentence.” While the court attempted to sever or cure the problematic portions of the sentencing statute, it was unable to do so, ultimately leading to their decision to invalidate the entire death penalty statute.

   After this decision, Delaware becomes the 20th state to have ended capital punishment. There are currently 18 inmates on death row in the state.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Rauf_v_State_No_39_2016_2016_BL_249274_Del_Aug_02_2016_Court_Opin?1470844238

Does Modern Standard of Intellecutal Disability Apply to 35-Year Old Death Sentence?

After granting certiorari, the Supreme Court will determine whether the modern standard of an intellectual disability applies for a conviction after a 35-year delay for an execution

 Moore v Texas, U.S. No 15-797, cert. granted 6/6/16.

   The Supreme Court will review whether modern medical standards, not those at the time of conviction, should be used to determine if a defendant has an intellectual disability making him ineligible for the death penalty. Initially, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found Moore did not show by a preponderance of evidence that he was intellectually disabled, thereby making him eligible for execution. This ruling, however, does not take into consideration new standards adopted by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the American Psychiatric Association after the Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which held that the Eight Amendment prevents the death penalty from being imposed on those with intellectual disabilities.

Federal Judge’s Ruling May Halt Future Executions in Arizona

A drug used in Arizona executions has passed its medical expiration date as a federal court hears a lawsuit claiming that the drug violates the Eight Amendment, potentially creating an indefinite hold to executions in the state

First Amendment Coal. of Ariz. Inc. v. Ryan, 2016 BL 160709, D. Ariz., No. 2:14-cv-01447, 5/18/16.

    A federal judge in Arizona refused to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that a drug used in the three step execution process in the state violated the Eight Amendment. The drug, however, reached its medical expiration date on May 31, 2016, effectively putting executions on an indefinite hold. The main argument against the the drug, midazolam, is that it violates the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment because it does not always render an inmate unconscious.

    The judge notes that Glossip v. Gross does not control because the inmates in the case were able to provide alternative protocols that are considered less painful, such as removing midazolam from the cocktail or replacing it with another drug, satisfying the Supreme Court’s holding in that case.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/First_Amendment_Coal_of_Ariz_Inc_v_Ryan_No_CV1401447PHXNVW_2016_B?1465246384

Florida Death Sentencing Scheme Unconstitutional

Florida's "hybrid" jury advisory sentencing scheme, which did not require unanimity, was struck down under the Sixth Amendment.

 

Hurst v. Florida, U.S. No. 14-7505, decided on 1/12/16

    The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Florida capital punishment sentencing scheme that involved juries giving advisory verdicts which did not need to be unanimous, but took into account aggravating factors and punishment. Ultimately, the juries were told, the judges had the final decision for what punishment would be imposed.

    The Court stated that "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury's recommendation is not enough."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-7505_5ie6.pdf

Atkins Claim Not Precluded By Previous Non-Atkins Claim

Capital prisoners may file an additional habeas corpus petitions to assert an Atkins argument of intellectual disability, even if the previous non-Atkins claim relied on the petitioner's disability.

 

In re Chase, 2015 BL 351660, 5th Cir., 15-60452, 10/26/15

   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a capital prisoner may file a successive habeas corpus petition to assert a claim that he is intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The court indicated that, even though his first petition claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to assert his intellectual disability to cast doubt on his confession and as mitigating evidence at sentencing, the previous claim was not an Atkins claim.
 
    The court indicated that this case was within the Atkins requirements that the claim not be presented in an prior application. The court ruled that a claim under Atkins is not the same as a pre-Atkins claim, even if that claim also relied on the petitioner's intellectual disability.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/In_re_RICKY_R_CHASE_Movant_No_1560452_2015_BL_351660_5th_Cir_Oct_?1449508854