Executing The Innocent

Carlos deLuna

"No one can ever say again with a straight face that America doesn't execute innocent men. No one."  -- Andrew Rosenthal, The Atlantic

Carlos DeLuna was executed in 1989 for the 1983 stabbing death of a gas station clerk in Corpus Christi, Texas.  The Columbia University Human Rights Review has just published its Spring 2012 issue devoted entirely to demonstrating that De Luna was innocent and that it was another Carlos - Carlos Hernandez -- who committed the murder.  The book-length article, entitled "Los Tocayos Carlos: Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution," was authored by Columbia law professor James Liebman and his team of students.

Rosenthal's piece in The Atlantic and Michael McLaughlin's at Huffington Post provide excellent summaries of the details of this deeply troubling case.

 McLaughlin cites some of the key findings of the investigation:

• The eyewitness statements actually conflict with each other. What witnesses said about the appearance and location of the suspect suggest that they were describing more than one person.
• Photos of a bloody footprint and blood spatter on the walls suggest the killer would have had blood on his shoes and pant legs, yet De Luna's clothes were clean.
• Prosecutors and police ignored tips unearthed in the case files that Carlos Hernandez, an older friend of De Luna, who had a reputation for wielding a blade, had killed Lopez. The defense failed to track down Hernandez, who bore a striking resemblance to De Luna.

This was a case of "epic malfeasance and misfeasance," Rosenthal writes, in which the police, prosecutor, defense lawyer and judge all contributed.

The execution of an innocent man over two decades ago cannot be dismissed, however, as an isolated case from a time when procedural safeguards were not as rigorous as they are today.  Indeed, Rosenthal cites to several recent capital cases in which there remain serious and substantial questions of innocence.

But this well-investigated, extensively documented report, as Rosenthal writes, "ought to end all reasonable debate in this country about whether an innocent man or woman has yet been executed in America since the modern capital punishment regime was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1976."

Another Trial On Steroids

After an earlier mistrial, Roger Clemens is being tried in federal court on perjury charges based on his testimony before Congress in 2008, in which he stated that he never used steroids or human growth hormone. 

I have long despised Clemens for his petulance, his arrogance and not least, his beaning of Mike Piazza in 2000, followed in the the World Series of that year with his inexcusable heaving of a piece of  broken bat at Piazza after it was shattered by a pitch.   Nevertheless, for the reasons I explored in a piece re-posted below on the Barry Bonds trial, the case serves no purpose and is a colossal waste of resources.

Trial On Steroids

So many people in and out of baseball hate Barry Bonds passionately.  He was a selfish player who focused unduly on his own statistics.  He is arrogant and unapologetic.  He has always treated the press with great disdain.  He had his own Barcalounger in the Giants' clubhouse.  Unlike, perhaps, more sympathetic marginal or fading players, he was a brilliant player in his prime when he felt compelled to cheat by using steroids.  He is a petty man who cheated because he was jealous of Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire, and wanted to become not just the best all around player, but the home run king.  And it worked; he not only broke McGwire's single-season home run record, even more egregiously, he eclipsed the hallowed career home run mark of the beloved Hank Aaron.  Have I missed anything?  Oh, and he denied knowingly taking steriods when forced to testify under oath before a grand jury.

For the last of these, Bonds is on trial, charged with lying to the grand jury and obstruction of justice.  It seems, however, that those who hate Barry Bonds hope he is humiliated, found guilty, and sentenced to a long prison term for his many other other non-criminal offenses.


I am not one of the Barry Haters.  Watching Barry Bonds play for the Giants, both pre- and post-alleged steroid use was one of my greatest thrills as a baseball fan.  Every time I went to the ballpark I felt it was a privilege to be able to see one of the most amazing players to have ever played.  In 2001, the year he hit 73 home runs, he hardly ever got a decent pitch (he walked 177 times that year), but when he did he crushed it.  Maybe steroids added some distance to these blasts, but the discipline, focus, timing and beauty of these at bats can't be credited to drugs.  The dude could flat out hit.

OK, with that disclaimer out of the way, I think the issue is less about Bonds and more about whether the United States Government should be expending so many resources on the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball.  We now know that steroid use was rampant for about a decade, beginning roughly in 1995.  During that time, offensive numbers (and players’ heads) were suspiciously inflated, fueling a welcome fan resurgence after the devastating baseball strike of 1994.  Attendance soared and baseball ownership gleefully looked the other way.  While all other major sports put policies into place banning steroid use, baseball management did nothing.

I strongly believe that the federal government can play an important role in investigating and remedying many of our social ills, including, for example, poverty and hunger, discrimination, deceptive practices of financial institutions, unsafe food production, inhumane working conditions, environmental hazards and climate change. Steroids in baseball does not come close to making this list.  Nevertheless, we have had federal investigations, grand juries, and even Congressional hearings to address an issue that should have been -- and eventually was -- handled by baseball itself.  (Roger Clemens, for whom I have no warmth in my heart, will be tried this summer on allegedly lying to Congress; I take the same position on Clemens as I do on Bonds.)

In 2002, a federal investigation began into whether BALCO labs was providing steroids to athletes, including baseball players.  Barry Bonds and others testified before a grand jury which, in 2004, issued a 42-count indictment charging BALCO-related figures with running a steroid-distribution ring.  40 of these charges were eventually dropped.  The main target, Victor Conte, BALCO's founder, pleaded guilty to one count of money-laundering and served only 4 months in prison followed by 4 months' home confinement.  BALCO's vice president James Valente received probation.  Greg Anderson, Bonds' personal trainer, received 3 months in prison and 3 months home confinement, although he served additional time for refusing to testify against Bonds.

Given the relatively light sentences received by the major players in the scandal it is hard to see the dogged pursuit of Barry Bonds by federal prosecutors as anything more than vindictive, ego-driven and an attempt to justify the enormous waste of time and resources.  The scandal derailed the end of his career, when no team was willing to sign him.  His legitimate claim to being one of the greatest ballplayers of all time, even before his alleged steroid use, and all his remarkable records are considered tainted by many.  And, as I started this piece, he is reviled by all but the most die-hard Giants fans (and me).  Isn't that enough?

Getting Away With Torture

DonkeyHotey

Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in 2002, at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on suspicion of plotting to detonate a dirty bomb.  He was designated by President Bush as an "enemy combatant," denied a civilian trial, and held in a military prison for three-and-a-half years where he was tortured.  As an editorial in the New York Times states:

[He] was denied contact with his lawyer, his family or anyone else outside the military brig for almost two years and kept in detention for almost four. His jailers made death threats, shackled him for hours, forced him into painful stress positions, subjected him to noxious fumes that hurt his eyes and nose and deafening noises at all hours, denied him care for serious illness and more.

Padilla was eventually tried in federal court on criminal conspiracy charges and found guilty in 2007 for conspiring to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. He was neither charged or convicted of planning to detonate a dirty bomb. He was sentenced to 17 years and four months in prison.

Padilla sued John Yoo, the former Bush Administration official who authored the infamous torture memos. (Padilla sought damages of $1.)   In case you've forgotten:

A Yoo memo from 2001 advised that the military could use “any means necessary” to hold terror suspects.

A 2002 memo to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised that treatment of suspected terrorists was torture only if it caused pain levels equivalent to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.”

Yoo also advised that the president might have the constitutional power to allow torturing enemy combatants.

Most famously, Yoo was the principal author of a memo sent to the CIA in August 2002 authorizing “waterboarding,” in which water is poured over the face of a bound detainee and simulates drowning.

The Ninth Circuit reversed a 2009 ruling by federal district court judge who had held that the lawsuit could go forward.  According to the Ninth Circuit, Yoo was not personally liable because "regardless of the legality of Padilla's detention and the wisdom of Yoo's judgments, at the time he acted the law was 'not sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated' [Padilla's] rights."

The Court assumed that Padilla was tortured but found that Yoo had qualified immunity for two reasons:

First, . . . it was not “beyond debate” at that time that Padilla .   — who was not a convicted prisoner or criminal defendant, but a suspected terrorist designated an enemy combatant and confined to military detention by order of the President — was entitled to the same constitutional protections as an ordinary convicted prisoner or accused criminal.

Second, although it has been clearly established for decades that torture of an American citizen violates the Constitution, and we assume without deciding that Padilla’s alleged treatment rose to the level of torture, that such treatment was torture was not clearly established in 2001-03.

This nearly insurmountable burden, of having to establish that a government official's violation of a citizens rights was "beyond debate" stems from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year, in Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd.  The Times explains why this standard is unworkable:

The Bush administration manufactured both “debates” — about torture and enemy combatants. Any future government can rely on this precedent to pull the same stunt as cover for some other outrage.

By using the “enemy combatant” category, the Bush administration stirred debate that had not existed about whether rights of an American citizen in custody depend on how he is classified. By coming up with offensive rationalizations for torturing detainees, it dishonestly stirred debate about torture’s definition when what it engaged in plainly included torture.

Yoo, minimizing his role as limited to providing "legal advice that the Constitution allows the military detention of Americans who join al Qaeda," complains in the Wall Street Journal that the Obama Administration failed to defend him in the lawsuit.  He is concerned that "worrying about future lawsuits will distort official decision-making, which should balance the costs and benefits to the national interest and not worry about personal liability."

As an amicus brief filed by law professors explained, “Yoo did not merely give ‘wrong’ advice in performing customary legal duties," rather "he acted outside of his legal role altogether by participating directly in the formulation of policy that gave rise to the deprivation of [Padilla’s] constitutional rights and by creating legal cover for unlawful detention and interrogation policies.”

As the Times concludes, the Ninth Circuit was wrong to "dwell on whether Mr. Padilla’s mistreatment was torture. Even if somehow it did not qualify, its cruel, inhumane and shocking nature badly violated his rights as a citizen — and international law on the treatment of detainees. Even at the time, the issue was beyond debate, and Mr. Yoo should have known that."

"Tough On Crime" No Longer The American Mantra?

By Inimai Chettiar and Alex Stamm, cross-posted from Huffington Post
  

Politicians over the last quarter-century have held strong to the conventional wisdom that being "tough on crime" will win elections and appease the public's appetite for safety. And for the most part, it seems Americans did feel this way (if you don't think so, just ask Michael Dukakis). To alleviate the public's overblown fear, or even to slake a thirst for retribution, our lawmakers have repeatedly deemed more private acts criminal and doled out harsher punishments for a generation. They selectively enforced these laws against the "feared" Black and brown communities, and in the end gave us a massive, unsustainable prison population unlike anything the world has ever seen.

But the pendulum of public opinion is starting to swing in the other direction. A Pew survey in March found that not only do 73 percent of Americans who have not experienced violent crime think that too many people are behind bars, but they're joined in that opinion by 70 percent of violent crime victims. Further, 88 percent of respondents agree that we have too many low-risk, nonviolent offenders behind bars, and 87 percent support increased access to reentry programs, such as job training.

The vast majority of Americans are ready to end our addiction to incarceration. What Americans want now is common sense and proportionality. Two factors have contributed significantly to the shift in opinion. First, Americans are increasingly aware of our appalling incarceration rate and its racial injustices. We have the largest prison population on the planet; we have 5 percent of the world's people but 25 percent of its prisoners. Our criminal justice system locks up Black and brown people for drug crimes at a far higher rate than their white counterparts -- even though white Americans use drugs at a higher rate. Our prison system is one of the largest human rights atrocities in the world.

Second, more Americans know that our incarceration rate is not only egregious but also unnecessary. Social scientists and policymakers have a generation of solid data proving that we can have fewer prisoners and less crime, and showing that unnecessary incarceration can actually increase recidivism. States have proven this over and over. New York did it; between 1999 and 2009, it reduced its prison population by 20 percent and its crime rate fell by 29 percent during that time. Texas did it too; thanks to smart reforms beginning in 2003, prison population growth stalled while its crime rate fell by 13 percent to its lowest level since 1973. These examples are a sample of a larger and growing trend—states and large cities are locking fewer people up, and their communities are getting safer.

Americans are tired of being tough on crime and are ready to be smart about crime. That's good news for lawmakers. It means that they can pass the necessary pretrial, sentencing, drug and parole reforms that this country so desperately needs without the fear of losing their next election. In fact, championing these types of reforms may actually start to win them votes. With the public behind them, we hope lawmakers will take action to finally end our incarceration binge.

Judicial Activism: Right Wing Edition

Judge Janice Rogers Brown

Whatever disappointments the left may have with President Obama, it must be understood how devastating a Romney Presidency would be in terms of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) and the preservation of fundamental rights, liberties and democratic principles.  (See Supreme Court Matters; Romney Gets Borked.)  

Janice Rogers Brown was an extreme right wing justice on a very right wing California Supreme Court from 1997 to 2005, when she was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President Bush, where she currently sits.  Rogers Brown, who has been known to trumpet Ayn Rand and decry Supreme Court decisions upholding the New Deal as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution," is precisely the kind of judge likely to be nominated by the next Republican president.  Professor Adam Winkler cites a recent Brown opinion to illustrate why this should scare us into action.   -- Lovechilde

Startling Conservative Judicial Opinion Should Motivate Progressives

By Adam Winkler, cross-posted from American Constitution Society

The age of judicial activism - err, I mean "judicial engagement" - is upon us. Having realized that they don't always win with voters, leading conservatives are abandoning their traditional emphasis on judicial restraint and respect for the decisions of democratically elected officials. After years of berating liberal judges for overturning laws in the name of controversial constitutional principles, conservatives are now embracing the notion of an active, "engaged" judiciary.  Only they want one that aggressively protects those rights conservatives prefer: property rights, rights of religious expression, the liberty of contract, the right not to buy broccoli - regardless of decades of established case law.

For evidence of this trend, one need not look further than startling concurring opinion by D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown in Hettinga v. United States. Brown, who is often mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee in a Republican administration, used her opinion to audition for a leadership role in this new movement. The time has come, she wrote, to end the pernicious practice of allowing legislatures to regulate the economy. "America's cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers. And the courts, from which the victims of burdensome regulation sought protection, have been negotiating the terms of surrender since the 1930s." The proof? The "Supreme Court allowed state and local jurisdictions to regulate property, pursuant to their police powers, in the public interest, and to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote the public welfare."

Besides Brown’s Bizarro world premises in which things like consumer protection laws harm consumers, her ode to the Lochner era reminds us of the importance of judicial appointments. For decades, Republican presidents have used the lower federal courts as a farm team for the Supreme Court, smartly filling positions with potential stars to see how they perform. This is a smart strategy, though one Democrats haven’t followed. Instead, Democratic presidents have tended to name competent, diverse people who aren’t likely to be controversial. But in the current political climate, even these clear consensus nominees are held up in the Senate, leaving the federal courts with a critical number of vacancies and a troubling imbalance in our courts. To counter the newly “engaged” judicial conservatives like Brown, legal liberals need to be fighting for judges, particularly those judges with the intellectual fortitude to go toe-to-toe with the leading lights of conservative constitutionalism. Respect for our Constitution and settled precedent demands nothing less.

Racial Justice In North Carolina

Judge Finds Racial Bias In Death Penalty Sentencing

By Keith Kamisugi, cross-posted from Equal Justice Society

Just days before the 25th anniversary of McCleskey v. Kemp, a North Carolina judge today ruled that racial bias impacted the death penalty conviction of Marcus Robinson and re-sentenced him to to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

This was the first case applying the historic and ground-breaking Racial Justice Act, enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly and Governor Bev Perdue to reject the influence of race discrimination in the administration of the death penalty. The RJA represents a landmark reform in North Carolina, a state which has long been a leader in forward-thinking criminal justice policies.

As reported by The New York Times, Judge Gregory A. Weeks of Cumberland County Superior Court said that “race was a materially, practically and statistically significant factor in the decision to exercise peremptory challenges during jury selection by prosecutors” at the time of the trial of the inmate, Marcus Reymond Robinson. The disparity was strong enough, the judge said, “as to support an inference of intentional discrimination.”

Judge Weeks found that prosecutors deliberately excluded qualified black jurors from jury service in Robinson’s case, in Cumberland County, and throughout the state.

Rob Thompson, one of the prosecutors in Cumberland County, said in his closing arguments: “They do not have evidence of purposeful discrimination. They do not have some secret society of prosecutors maniacally plotting to remove people from juries. They do not have any of that because there is no such evidence. It doesn’t exist. They have numbers.”

This prosecutor’s argument demonstrates the importance of EJS’s goal to replace the intent standard of the Fourteenth Amendment with a disparate impact standard. Instead of having to prove intent, criminal defendants could use statistical evidence of racial bias – the “numbers” referred to by the Thompson.

From the ACLU Blog of Rights: “The Robinson decision is really the first significant win since the Supreme Court dealt a blow to fairness in the death penalty 25 years ago this Sunday, ruling in McCleskey v. Kemp that statistical evidence of systemic racial disparities could not be used to overturn death sentences because such disparities were ‘inevitable.’ Today’s decision, and the RJA itself, stand as a powerful rebuke to the Supreme Court’s defeatist view of discrimination.”

To observe this tragic anniversary of McCleskey on Sunday, April 22, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) and the Equal Justice Society (EJS) joined with organizations across the country – including the ACLU Capital Punishment Project, the Capital Litigation Communications Project, the Center for Death Penalty Litigation Inc., the Death Penalty Information Center, Equal Justice USA, the Innocence Project, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and the Proteus Fund – to raise awareness of how this landmark decision fundamentally threatens equality and opportunity in this country.

Together, we launched mccleskeyvkemp.com, a website that provides information about the ongoing crisis of race in criminal justice and offers information about specific activities that individuals and organizations can take to repeal the death penalty and ameliorate the racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

The site includes publications and reports, media articles, links to take action, as well as information about the LDF/Columbia Law School Symposium, “Pursuing Racial Fairness in Criminal Justice: Twenty Years After McCleskey v. Kemp,” which was held in March of 2007 to mark the 20th anniversary of the McCleskey decision.

Join us in the effort to raise awareness of this landmark decision that every day threatens the ideals of equality and opportunity in this country. Visit mccleskeyvkemp.com to learn more.

Death Penalty Proponents Lose Another Argument

Those of us representing defendants who have killed understand the utter fallacy of the argument that the death penalty deters killing.  It is nonsensical to think that when one is suffering from whatever disturbed state of mind that leads him or her to intentionally cause another's death they carefully weigh beforehand whether to do so based on what ultimate punishment they may receive (i.e., "Yes, I will kill because the worst that could happen is I get life without parole.")

Indeed, while it has long been argued by death penalty proponents that capital punishment is necessary to deter crime, it has never been conclusively proven to have a deterrent effect.  In fact, it has long been true that the states with capital punishment also have the most crimes of violence.

Albert Camus’ essay against the death penalty, Reflections on the Guillotine (1957), includes a refutation of the deterrence argument that remains salient today.  Camus, citing an earlier study which described pickpockets plying their trade at the public hanging of other pickpockets, goes on to explain that  the complexity of human nature is not so easily controlled by law: “When law ventures, in the hope of dominating, into the dark regions of consciousness, it has little chance of being able to simplify the complexity it wants to codify.”

And now we have more proof - - or lack of proof.  As reported in the Los Angeles Times, a panel of independent experts convened by the National Research Council released a report finding that the studies on the alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty contain fundamental flaws that render them meaningless.  For example, the studies fail to consider whether other forms of punishment, such as life without parole, may also act as a deterrent. The studies don’t “consider how the capital and noncapital components of a regime combine in affecting the behavior of potential murderers.”

More fundamentally, the research underlying deterrence studies is based on the assumption that those who kill can or even try to accurately calculate their risk of being executed if they were convicted.  But, as the chairman of the committee acknowledged, "nothing is known about how potential murderers actually perceive their risk of punishment.”

It  has become increasingly clear that capital punishment is not a productive tool for fighting crime and, indeed, undermines personal and public safety by draining needed resources from more effective methods.

Many people who have devoted their lives and careers to law enforcement, public safety and victims' rights, including former San Quentin Warden Jeanne Woodford, former Los Angeles D.A. Gil Garcetti, Supervisor Ron Briggs whose family created California's death penalty law, and Don Heller, who wrote it, have come to realize that the death penalty is counterproductive, that the old arguments in favor of its continued use no longer apply, and that the time has come to replace it.

The SAFE California Act is about to qualify for the November 2012 ballot.  If it passes it would replace California's multi‑billion dollar death penalty with life imprisonment without parole and require those convicted of murder to work and pay restitution to victim families through the victim compensation fund.  It would also set aside $100 million in budget saving for local law enforcement for the investigation of unsolved rape and murder cases.

Click here for more information on the SAFE California campaign and on how you can join the effort to replace the death penalty and enhance our personal and public safety.

25 Years After McCleskey, Racial Bias Remains "An Inevitable Part Of Our Criminal Justice System"

Twenty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued McCleskey v. Kemp, one of its more shameful decisions.  Despite overwhelming statistical evidence of systemic racial bias in Georgia's imposition of capital punishment, the Court upheld Warren McCleskey's death sentence.  It held that statistics proving a discriminatory effect were insufficient and that a showing of deliberate, purposeful discrimination -- a nearly impossible burden -- was required to establish a constitutional violation on equal protection grounds.  The majority 5-4 opinion, authored by Justice Powell, acknowledged that racial bias was "an inevitable part of our criminal justice system," but cynically concluded that if sentences stemming from such bias were tossed out it would call the entire system into question. 

I am not a fan of analogies to Nazi Germany, which in many ways was an incomparable horror.  But in the piece written below by my dear friend, the remarkable Denny LeBoeuf, the thought experiment she proposes is quite apt.  -- Lovechilde

If Germany Had The Death Penalty:  A Thought Experiment

By Denny LeBoeuf, cross-posted from the ACLU Blog of Rights

Imagine it's 1976. A high crime rate afflicts German cities, and the government reinstates the death penalty. "We'll have the strongest possible protections for people accused of capital crimes, providing them with free lawyers, right to experts, investigators, appeals to higher courts, and trial by a jury of their peers. This is not the Germany of the Nazi Party. We will never repeat those terrible errors."

Now imagine that 30 years later, statistical evidence shows that Jewish citizens disproportionately get the death penalty; crimes by Jews against Christians are more likely to be selected for a capital prosecution; Jews are routinely excluded from jury service. Further imagine that prosecutors defend all this by saying that Jews shouldn't sit on capital juries because they are mistrustful of German authorities, and that the German high court has ruled that statistical evidence of discrimination against Jews is inadmissible in a death penalty case.

You see where we're headed. My guess is that most people can't get past the second sentence of this thought experiment, let alone past the discrimination against Jews.

Bryan Stevenson, whose idea this is, asks this of America: "Do we deserve to have a death penalty?" If Germany does not — and they emphatically believe they do not — then why do we? Think the parallels are forced? Not accurate? Really?

Consider this: before the Civil War, crimes against Black people in the South were considered only as property crimes against their owners. The Supreme Court issued its Dred Scott decision in 1857, finding that Blacks have "no rights which the white man is bound to respect." Within a few years after the Civil War, the criminal justice system became an engine to produce bodies — Black bodies — to work in the same agricultural fields they had tended as slaves, and in the burgeoning industries of the post-Reconstruction South.



Doug Blackmon's Pulitzer-winning book, Slavery by Another Name, carefully documents the re-enslavement of Black Americans after the Civil War — by a re-tooled criminal justice system that charged, convicted and sentenced freed slaves and their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren based on the need for free convict labor — not on guilt, innocence, culpability or fair procedures.

Meanwhile, as Black people were being targeted by the criminal justice system for undeserved punishment, the very same system was protecting the vigilante members of white supremacist domestic terrorist groups like the KKK and the Knights of the White Camellia, who were allowed to commit murder, arson and property theft in the open, without fear of arrest or prosecution.

So if a criminal justice system functions to protect white criminals (the Klan) and convict Black workers (for convict labor) with little or no regard for innocence or guilt, what is the one thing that system cannot accommodate? The equal participation in the system of Black people. That means no Black people on juries — by law for many years and by unlawful and unconstitutional discrimination after that. It also means shutting out statistical evidence of discrimination, no matter how explosive, careful and well-documented, that would prove the system — up to and including the sentencing of a person to death — is tainted by race discrimination. That's according to McCleskey, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 25 years ago.

As a part of a coalition of capital defense attorneys, earlier this year ACLU Capital Punishment Project attorney Cassandra Stubbs participated in the first-ever hearing under North Carolina's Racial Justice Act, which aims to reverse the harm of McCleskey by allowing capital defendants to introduce statistical evidence showing race is a factor in the administration of the death penalty.
The lawyers are challenging the death sentence of Marcus Robinson, a Black defendant convicted for the death of a white person, who was sentenced to death by a jury tainted by a racially biased jury selection process.

Faced with overwhelming proof that Black people are continually excluded from death penalty juries in North Carolina, the prosecutors in Robinson's case argued, essentially, that Black people tend not to trust the criminal justice system, and don't believe in the death penalty as much.

Now back to the thought experiment. Prosecutors in North Carolina argue that Black people, who have been deliberately excluded from and discriminated against by America's criminal justice system since the Civil War, are less likely to trust that system, and therefore it's okay to continue to exclude them from participating in it. Now let's answer Bryan Stevenson's question: Does the United States deserve to have the death penalty?

Supreme Court Matters

DonkeyHotey

"If Obama wants to frame the election as a battle of the 99 percent versus the 1 percent, there’s no sidestepping the heightened importance of the Supreme Court."  -- Ari Berman

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 79 years old and is the Supreme Court Justice most likely to retire next.  If Mitt Romney gets the opportunity to nominate her replacement, we won't have to worry about Justice Kennedy being the swing vote anymore -- he will simply be the least conservative justice in a radically right-wing 6-3 majority.  (See Romney Gets Borked)

As it stands now, the Court is easily the most conservative since at least the 1930s.  And, as Ari Berman writes in The Nation, the rightward shift of the Roberts Court is "especially pronounced today, in the wake of the ghastly 2010 Citizens United decision and the prospect that the Court may invalidate the Obama administration’s healthcare law."

And that's not all.  Over the next couple of years the Court will consider a number of potentially historic cases that could either reaffirm or undermine some of our country's most fundamental rights and liberties,  including Arizona’s draconian “papers please” immigration law and a challenge to affirmative action at the University of Texas.  As Berman points out, it will likely weigh in on California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, and/or the Defense of Marriage Act, issues surrounding the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Montana’s ban on corporate campaign contributions and its challenge to Citizens United,  the indefinite detention of enemy combatants, the ability of foreign nationals to sue corporations and their employees in the United States for human rights abuses abroad, and "possibly even Roe v. Wade, given the slew of anti-abortion restrictions passed by Republicans since the 2010 elections."

President Obama received a lot of attention for his recent remarks about the Court and how a decision invalidating the Affordable Care Act would constitute judicial activism:

Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

Obama should keep it up. Elections do have consequences, as they say, and the electorate needs to understand that the consequences this time around couldn't be more serious.  As Berman points out, "if ever there was a time for the President to run against the Court, it is now."  

Congress Must Act To End Prosecutorial Misconduct

By Ginny Sloan, cross-posted from Huffington Post

When federal prosecutors charged the late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) with failing to report more than $250,000 in illegal gifts and home renovations, they knew the stakes were sky high. Stevens, after all, was only the 11th senator in history to be indicted while in office. In 2008, the prosecutions succeeded in convincing a Washington, DC jury to convict Stevens. A month later, Stevens, the longest serving Republican senator in history, was defeated in his bid for re-election by fewer than 4,000 votes; most observers think the conviction helped to sway the election. Stevens died two years later in a plane crash.

Thanks to a two-and-a-half year independent investigation ordered by the judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan, and finally released several weeks ago, we now know how prosecutors won Stevens' conviction: they cheated. They violated his constitutional rights by intentionally concealing evidence that they knew would have supported Stevens' claim that he intended to pay for all work performed on his house. They hid documents and they allowed a cooperating witness to testify falsely to the jury. The investigators' 514-page report is a chilling reminder that not even the most powerful leaders in the nation are safe when federal prosecutors ignore their duty to seek justice, and instead pursue victory at any cost.

Sadly, the Ted Stevens case was not an isolated incident. Although the failure to disclose evidence is a constitutional violation that by its very nature often goes undiscovered (anything that the government chooses not to disclose to the defense generally remains unknown), we still know it occurs with disturbing frequency. For example, a 2010 USA Today investigation documented 86 cases since 1997 in which judges found that federal prosecutors had failed to turn over evidence that they were legally required to disclose. A number of organizations have reached similar conclusions about the frequency of these violations.

I have tremendous respect for the men and women who serve as federal prosecutors and believe that the vast majority of them act in good faith to fulfill their constitutional and legal obligations. However, it is difficult for even well-meaning prosecutors to understand what exactly those obligations entail in the face of murky rules and conflicting standards. When violations are occurring by even those prosecutors who intend to seek justice, something must be done.

Legislation offered by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) gives Congress the opportunity to address this serious problem. Senator Murkowski's "The Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act" is a bipartisan proposal that would require federal prosecutors to turn over to defendants all evidence favorable to their cases, and would provide appropriate penalties when they fail to do so. Passage of the bill would ensure that defendants receive all information to which they are constitutionally entitled, and would create greater consistency in federal prosecutions by eliminating jurisdictional disparities.


The Constitution Project has long been dedicated to protecting constitutional safeguards in the criminal justice system, and the Murkowski bill is an important step towards doing just that. Its safeguards are the bedrock of our system and absolutely essential in protecting the public from abuses of the government power to deprive individuals of their liberty and even their lives.

We recently released a statement from 140 criminal justice experts from across the political spectrum calling on Congress to adopt legislation to address the problem highlighted in the Stevens case -- legislation that is consistent with the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act. More than 100 former federal prosecutors are among those joining the call, including: Stuart Gerson, former Acting U.S. Attorney General under President Clinton; Larry Thompson, former Deputy Attorney General during President George W. Bush's first term; former FBI Director William S. Sessions; and famous author Scott Turow.

These experts point out that federal courts, the Department of Justice and other entities have for years tried to fix the problem, only to articulate inconsistent or inadequate standards, making it difficult for individual prosecutors to determine the scope of their obligations to disclose information. The group concluded, "Only federal legislation can adequately address these continued violations by federal prosecutors, creating a uniform standard for what must be disclosed and what remedies will exist for non-disclosure, and sending a strong message to the DOJ that there will be consequences when federal prosecutors violate their discovery obligations."

Congress has the power to prevent another injustice like what happened to Senator Stevens from occurring. It should act swiftly to pass the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act, creating clear standards for what information federal prosecutors are obligated to disclose to the defense and providing appropriate remedies when prosecutors fail to do so.

Virginia E. Sloan founded The Constitution Project in 1997 and is now its President and serves on its Board of Directors.  The Constitution Project is a politically independent think tank established to promote and defend constitutional safeguards. More information about the Constitution Project is available at constitutionproject.org.