FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Prosecutors Weep; Ninth Circuit Overturns 127 Death Sentences

On September 2, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Summerlin v. Stewart that death sentences imposed by judges rather than juries must be set aside. A logical outgrowth of two recent Supreme Court decisions, the Ninth Circuit’s decision could lead to the technical commutation of sentences of more than 127 prisoners in Arizona, Montana, and Idaho. That is, unless prosecutors ask for and seek a stay of the decision pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. These are the three states within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit that utilize judges, not juries, to sentence defendants in capital cases.

The high court will surely review the decision, given the sheer numbers of sentences involved. And a Supreme Court decision that reverses the Ninth Circuit would be tough to justify. For in its landmark ruling in 2000 in the case of Appredi v. New Jersey, the Court held that juries must decide beyond reasonable doubt every fact that leads to the imposition of an increased penalty for the defendant (e.g., a 20-year as opposed to a 10-year sentence based on the amount of drugs sold). Such determinations must not be made by judges, the Court said.

The court extended this logic to the death penalty last year in Ring v. Arizona, ruling that juries must determine the factual bases for death sentences. In so ruling, the justices invalidated judge-based capital sentencing systems in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Colorado and Nebraska.

What the high court did not decide was whether or not its ruling must be applied retroactively or only to sentences after the date of the Court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit, in an 8-3 majority of all sitting judges, essentially said that the Ring ruling had so transformed the constitutional framework governing the imposition of death sentences that it would be unconstitutional to execute someone who had been sentenced under a pre-Ring system.

According to The Washington Post, If the Ninth Circuit ruling is upheld, the impact could extend to Nebraska and Colorado, which had similar laws to Arizona, Idaho and Montana, and where an additional nine death row inmates might benefit, according to Deborah Fins, who tracks the death-row population for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, an anti-capital punishment organization.

Four other states, Florida, Alabama, Delaware and Indiana, with a total death row population of 632, have used hybrid systems in which juries advise judges, but judges make the final call. These systems may also face court challenges under Ring.

Imagine how this news upsets prosecutors (especially the chief prosecutor in the land, Attorney General John Ashcroft), who cherish the death penalty and will stop at nothing to see it imposed. You can be sure they are pouring over the decision and poking holes in it sufficient to convince the Supreme Court that retroactively applying a decision is unfair–that people dying after the Court has said the process is illegal is a fine thing. When the state assumes the role of “Deity,” the opinion said, it better be right. It is not right to say that tomorrow’s defendant must be sentenced to death by a jury, but for yesterday’s accused, death will do. Responding to the three dissenters, the majority challenged this “warped” view of justice:

Is it possible that prisoners will now be executed by the state solely because of the happenstance that the Supreme Court recognized the correctness of their constitutional arguments too late–on a wholly arbitrary date, rather than when it should have? Will we add to all of the other arbitrariness infecting our administration of the death penalty the pure fortuity of when the Supreme Court recognized its own critical error with respect to the meaning of the Constitution? Can we justify executing those whose legal efforts had reached a certain point in our imperfect legal process on the day the Supreme Court changed its mind, while invalidating the death sentences of those whose cases were waiting slightly further down the line?

…{I}f our society truly honors its constitutional values, it will not tolerate the execution by the state of individuals whose capital sentences were imposed in violation of their constitutional rights. It should not take a constitutional scholar to comprehend that point.

Whether the high court will muster a majority that is as morally outraged as the Ninth Circuit remains to be seen. It may not take a constitutional scholar to comprehend the unfairness of killing people whose appeals were completed before Ring. But it will take five of nine Supreme Court justices acting boldly and compassionately and resisting political pressure to go along with the arbitrary machinery of death grinding away day to day in the death houses of American prisons.

ELAINE CASSEL practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teachers law and psychology, and follows the Bush regime’s dismantling of the Constitution at Civil Liberties Watch. She can be reached at: ecassel1@cox.net

More articles by:
August 16, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
“Don’t Be Stupid, Be a Smarty”: Why Anti-Authoritarian Doctors Are So Rare
W. T. Whitney
New Facebook Alliance Endangers Access to News about Latin America
Ramzy Baroud
Mission Accomplished: Why Solidarity Boats to Gaza Succeed Despite Failing to Break the Siege
Larry Atkins
Why Parkland Students, Not Trump, Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize
William Hartung
Donald Trump, Gunrunner for Hire
Yves Engler
Will Trudeau Stand Up to Mohammad bin Salman?
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Morality Tales in US Public Life?
Vijay Prashad
Samir Amin: Death of a Marxist
Binoy Kampmark
Boris Johnson and the Exploding Burka
Eric Toussaint
Nicaragua: The Evolution of the Government of President Daniel Ortega Since 2007 
Adolf Alzuphar
Days of Sagebrush, Nights of Jasmine in LA
Robert J. Burrowes
A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival
August 15, 2018
Jason Hirthler
Russiagate and the Men with Glass Eyes
Paul Street
Omarosa’s Book Tour vs. Forty More Murdered Yemeni Children
Charles Pierson
Is Bankruptcy in Your Future?
George Ochenski
The Absolute Futility of ‘Global Dominance’ in the 21st Century
Gary Olson
Are We Governed by Secondary Psychopaths
Fred Guerin
On News, Fake News and Donald Trump
Arshad Khan
A Rip Van Winkle President Sleeps as Proof of Man’s Hand in Climate Change Multiplies and Disasters Strike
P. Sainath
The Unsung Heroism of Hausabai
Georgina Downs
Landmark Glyphosate Cancer Ruling Sets a Precedent for All Those Affected by Crop Poisons
Rev. William Alberts
United We Kneel, Divided We Stand
Chris Gilbert
How to Reactivate Chavismo
Kim C. Domenico
A Coffeehouse Hallucination: The Anti-American Dream Dream
August 14, 2018
Daniel Falcone
On Taking on the Mobilized Capitalist Class in Elections: an Interview With Noam Chomsky
Karl Grossman
Turning Space Into a War Zone
Jonah Raskin
“Fuck Wine Grapes, Fuck Wines”: the Coming Napafication of the World
Manuel García, Jr.
Climate Change Bites Big Business
Alberto Zuppi - Cesar Chelala
Argentina at a Crossroads
Chris Wright
On “Bullshit Jobs”
Rosita A. Sweetman
Dear Jorge: On the Pope’s Visit to Ireland
Binoy Kampmark
Authoritarian Revocations: Australia, Terrorism and Citizenship
Sara Johnson
The Incredible Benefits of Sagebrush and Juniper in the West
Martin Billheimer
White & Red Aunts, Capital Gains and Anarchy
Walter Clemens
Enough Already! Donald J. Trump Resignation Speech
August 13, 2018
Michael Colby
Migrant Injustice: Ben & Jerry’s Farmworker Exploitation
John Davis
California: Waging War on Wildfire
Alex Strauss
Chasing Shadows: Socialism Won’t Go Away Because It is Capitalism’s Antithesis 
Kathy Kelly
U.S. is Complicit in Child Slaughter in Yemen
Fran Shor
The Distemper of White Spite
Chad Hanson
We Know How to Protect Homes From Wildfires. Logging Isn’t the Way to Do It
Faisal Khan
Nawaz Sharif: Has Pakistan’s Houdini Finally Met his End?
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Versus Journalism: the Travails of Fourth Estate
Wim Laven
Honestly Looking at Family Values
Fred Gardner
Exploiting Styron’s Ghost
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail