Snuff this SOB

[Boxlicker101]

In Ohio, at least one case resulted in an outright dismissal of charges.

Nationwide, Columbia Law School Professor James S. Liebman found that for the period of 1973-1995, 68% of all death row appeals resulted in reversals. Eighty-two percent of those cases resulted in a different result on remand, and 7% of all cases resulted in outright acquittal. Ohio State Law Journal.

The seven percent figure is significant. That means that over the 23 year period this author reviewed, at least 140 innocent people were sentenced to death. Many thousands more were sentenced to death in cases where the death penalty was not a legal option.

Reducing the appeals process to a single proceeding may sound attractive, but it does not solve the problem. State courts and federal courts do not have identical jurisdiction in death cases. That's why in Ohio, the federal procedure cannot commence until the state process is concluded.

Moreover, according to Liebman, 40% of the reversals occurred in Federal courts after two appeals had already concluded. Under your single review proposal, 40% of the errors would never have been corrected. This is simply too high of an error rate to ignore.

The constitution guarantees the same rights to all defendants--the guilty as well as the innocent.

But were the acquittals and dismissal the results of actual innocence being established or were they some kind of procedural grounds? For instance, did a judge rule a suspects Miranda rights were not properly explained, and therefore his or her statements were not admissable? Did an appellate judge rule the warrant used to authorize a wiretap should not have been issued so the confession obtained through the wiretap was not valid, and that evidence found as a result of recorded conversations could not be used? This is what I mean by procedural or Constitutional grounds.

Why should there be an infinite number of appeals on such grounds? Lawyers for the accused have plenty of time to prepare appeals on ALL such grounds at any one time.

 

[sr71plt]

But were the acquittals and dismissal the results of actual innocence being established or were they some kind of procedural grounds? For instance, did a judge rule a suspects Miranda rights were not properly explained, and therefore his or her statements were not admissable? Did an appellate judge rule the warrant used to authorize a wiretap should not have been issued so the confession obtained through the wiretap was not valid, and that evidence found as a result of recorded conversations could not be used? This is what I mean by procedural or Constitutional grounds.

Why should there be an infinite number of appeals on such grounds? Lawyers for the accused have plenty of time to prepare appeals on ALL such grounds at any one time.

All of those issues you bring up are constitutionally based issues. Either you believe the Constitution (and state constitutions) are just for you or that they are for everyone. Which is it?

 

[PennLady]

Why should there be an infinite number of appeals on such grounds? Lawyers for the accused have plenty of time to prepare appeals on ALL such grounds at any one time.

Why should there be a limit? If they find a problem, they should be allowed to address it, and not every problem is apparent all at once. Lawyers also handle multiple cases at one time -- how do you know how much time they have to prepare appeals?

To me, you have to be way beyond a reasonable doubt to take someone's life.

So, if you put them for life in prison, perhaps the appeal system would be less, or different. But at least if they are found to be innocent, they can be released. Not so if they've been executed.

 

[mikey2much]

Everybody has to follow the rules

If the police didn't follow the rules then the case deserves to be reversed.

A few years back a group of lawyers using DNA and other means proved that a third of the people on Ill. dearhrow should not have been there.

The Gov was so shook by it that he stopped the death penealty for years.

Also, to me, this guy seems a little short of a full deck.