Capital Defense Weekly

The most notable decision of the week seems to U.S. v. Allen, from the Eighth Circuit. On remand from the Supreme Court following Ring the court holds the Fifth Amendment requires at least one statutory aggravating factor and the mens rea requirement to be found by the grand jury and charged in the indictment. Unfortunately for Allen, the error here held harmless because any rational grand jury would have found the existence of the requisite mental state and one or more statutory aggravating factors based on the actual evidence which was presented to the grand jury in the case, to wit, that defendant created a grave risk of death to others while committing the bank robbery and in fleeing apprehension and that he acted with the required mental state when he intentionally shot and killed a bank guard. Further, mere possibility of grand jury nullification does not transform harmless error into a prejudicial error, and defendant could show nothing more than a possibility.

U.S. v. Basciano, 2005 WL 1048846 (5/5/2005) Housing in SHU pretrial unduly aimpairs the right to prep for trial without a showing that segregation is necessary to achieve termination of criminal activitty.

Jury Service Resource Center v. Carson, , 199 Or.App. 106, 2005 WL 845512 (Ore App 4/13/2005) "[T]o protect the values guaranteed by the First Amendment right of access to the jury selection process, that process must be open from the first step. We therefore conclude that the source lists, master lists, and jury term lists used in criminal trials are presumptively open to the public. Because Oregon does not use different lists for criminal and civil juries, all the lists are presumptively open."

Decisions Favoring Death

U.S. v. Allen, 2005 WL 1005101 (8th Cir 5/2/2005) "In sum, we conclude that although the Fifth Amendment requires that at least one statutory aggravating factor and the requisite mental state be found by the grand jury and charged in the indictment in FDPA prosecutions, the failure to do so in this pre-Ring case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and we conclude that Ring did not render the FDPA unconstitutional.

State v. Anderson, 2005 WL 1027175 (Az. 5/4/2004)

Bible v. State, 2005 WL 1027486 (Tex.Crim.App. 5/4/2005)

C onner v. Polk, 2005 WL 1020953 (4th Cir 5/3/2005)

State v. Barker, 2005 WL 1027908 (Ind. 5/4/2005) Statute permitting a death sentence to be imposed by a judge alone in cases where the jury cannot reach a sentencing decision upheld.

Notable Noncapital Cases

Talk Left writes:

CrimProf Blog writes:

Abolish the Death Penalty

Lonely Abolitionist notes:

Connecticut Law Blog

THE SMALL PRINT

SUBSCRIBING & ARCHIVES: Capital Defense Weekly is normally written by Karl Keys. CDW is published forty (40) times (or so) a year. Archives accessible from the pull down bar located in at http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/index.html. CDW is on Yahoo Groups to guarantee that deliver of the weekly will continue to your email box, as well as to maintain your privacy. To subscribe: capital_defense_weekly-subscribe@yahoogroups.com & Unsubscribe: capital_defense_weekly-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

© 1997-2005 COPYRIGHT, DISCLAIMERS, NOTICES, TERMS OF USAGE & FAIR USE NOTICE: In plain English, you can use these materials for any noncommercial purposes you see fit, (such as professional education, your newsletter, etc) but don't use materials I list below as being the intellectual property of others because under federal law I simply can't give away the rights of others to their own intellectual property. In legalesse, the copyright, disclaimers, notices, & terms of usage are available at capitaldefenseweekly.com/disclaimthis.htm and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ (Copyright waived for noncommercial use, save for the intellectual property owned by others, most notably found in the "Focus," "Around the Web" and "Around the Blogs" section). As always, the views expressed here represent the view of the author and do not reflect the views of my employer. This edition contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, & social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who've expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research & educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you are the copyright owner of materials that appear here and object to said use please contact Capital Defense Weekly.

DISCLAIMER: Note that on a semi-regular basis cases in which I have participated in one manner or another may be covered here. Note that most opinions noted above are "slip opinions" that may be modified or withdrawn by the issuing court without notice.

ISSN: 1523-6684

* Execution date information per Rick Halperin and other sources.