Death Penalty

Question 1

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) *

Answer 1

The execution of “mentally retarded” persons is considered cruel and unusual punishment

The court reversed itself from Penry v. Lynaugh (1989)

Question 2

Buchanan v. Kentucky (1987)

Answer 2

Death-qualifying a jury is NOT a violation of the 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury

Question 3

Eddings v. Oklahoma (1978)

Answer 3

Upheld decision in Lockett that a court MUST consider mitigating factors when considering a sentence of death

Question 4

Ford v. Wainwright (1986)

Answer 4

You CANNOT execute the insane, it is a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments

Question 5

Hall v. Florida (2014) *

Answer 5

It IS a violation of the Constitution to rely upon a strict IQ score in determining intellectual disability for the purposes of death penalty proceedings

Question 6

Roper v. Simmons (2005) *

Answer 6

The execution of minors VIOLATES the “cruel and unusual punishment” protection in the 8th amendment

Question 7

Panetti v. Quarterman (2007)

Answer 7

A “rational understanding” and a “factual awareness” are necessary for a person to be found competent to be executed.

Indicated the Ford v. Wainwright “does not foreclose inquiry into rational understanding” - added further guidance to decision in Ford

Awareness is more than rote assent and should extend to the ability to act on that understanding

In the absence of clear standards, states vary in statutes and degree of guidance re: how comp to be executed is defined and practically expressed

Question 8

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Answer 8

The DP was found to be constitutional and reinstated in GA due to the requirement that at least 1 agg factor must be established beyond a reasonably doubt before a defendant could be sentenced to death

Permitted defense to intro mitigating facts to be considered by jury before sentencing.

Bifurcated capital trial in which sentencing phase followed only if def. is convicted of capital murder.

Served as model statute for other states seeking to write constitutionally acceptable DP legislation.

Question 9

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Answer 9

1st SCOTUS decision to hold that DP was violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause as it was then being practiced in US.

DP statutes of GA and TX described as “arbitrary” and compared to a “lottery system” and “being struck by lightning”

Question 10

Hall v. Florida (2014)*

Answer 10

Cannot rely on IQ scores (<70) to determine if defendant is eligible for execution - creates unacceptable risk someone with ID is executed (violates cruel & unusual, 8th Am.)

Question 11

Lockett v. Ohio (1978)*

Answer 11

Court can consider any mitigating factor (related to defendant’s character and/or circumstances of offense) as a basis for a sentence less than death.

Expert’s must therefore explore all avenues of mitigation

Question 12

Eddings v. Oklahoma (1978)

Answer 12

During capital sentencing, trial court must consider all mitigating re: defendant (in this case, failed to consider Eddings’s unhappy childhood)

Such reports require detailed inquiry into all possible avenues of mitigation.

Question 13

Singleton v. Norris (2003)

Answer 13

• Gov’t interest in carrying out lawfully imposed death sentence is “essential”
• Can force meds when no less intrusive way of fulling this interest exists
• State can show by clear & convincing evidence that meds would likely render person comp, no serious SEs, and is in the def’s “best medical interest.”

Question 14

State v. Perry (1992)

Answer 14

A State cannot involuntarily medicate a death row inmate w/ antipsychs to make him/her competent to be executed

Question 15

Buchanan v. Kentucky (1987)

Answer 15

If a defendant pursues MSO defense, it is not a violation of their 5th or 6th for prosecution to introduce rebuttal psych evidence

Question 16

Ford v. Wainwright (1986)

Answer 16

An “insane” person cannot be executed

it’s cruel and unusual

Question 17

Lawlor v. Zook (2018)

Answer 17

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of habeas corpus relief to a death row prisoner. The Court held that where the jury’s only choices were life in prison without parole or death, the exclusion of expert testimony that the defendant “represents a very low risk of committing acts of violence while incarcerated” is a violation of clearly established law.

At issue on appeal in the Fourth Circuit was the exclusion of testimony by Dr. Mark Cunningham, who used records, collaterals, statistical data and actuarial models to analyze Lawlor’s “potential to adjust to a life term in prison without serious violence.”
The court told Dr. Cunningham: “It’s future dangerousness, period, not future dangerousness in prison….”

The Fourth Circuit explained that the U.S. Supreme Court clearly established in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1981), that the Constitution requires “that the sentencer not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record . . . that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” The Supreme Court applied that rule in Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), when “considering a capital defendant’s right to present mitigating evidence regarding future dangerousness when that aggravator is alleged.”
The Skipper Court instructed that courts must predict a convicted person’s probable future conduct when they engage in the process of determining the punishment to be imposed, and the “defendant’s past conduct [is] indicative of his probable future behavior.” Relevant to the inquiry of whether a defendant should be spared the death penalty is consideration that “he would pose no undue danger to his jailers or fellow prisoners and could lead a useful life behind bars if sentenced to life imprisonment.”

Question 18

Madison v. Alabama (2019)

Answer 18

The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a state from executing a prisoner who cannot remember committing his crime, but it does prohibit executing a prisoner who cannot rationally understand the reasons for his execution, whether that inability is due to psychosis or dementia.

Question 19

Moore v. Texas (2017)

Answer 19

The use of an outdated medical definition of intellectual disability (ignored Hall v. FL) violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as well as Supreme Court precedent.

Question 20

Payne v. Tennessee (1991)

Answer 20

The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a capital sentencing jury from considering the impact that a victim’s death had upon surviving family members.

The Court reasoned that since “[v]irtually no limits are placed on the relevant mitigating evidence a capital defendant may introduce concerning his own circumstances,” the prosecution must be allowed to submit similar counter evidence.

Question 21

Strickland v. Washington (1984)

Answer 21

What standard should be applied to determine whether a convicted person’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been violated so as to require reversal of a conviction or to set aside a death sentence? The Supreme Court held that: (1) counsel’s performance must be deficient; and (2) the deficient performance must have prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.