Capital Defense Weekly: 2007

The news of this edition is Tuesday's cert. grant in the “Kentucky lethal injection challenge" (Baze v. Rees). Baze represents a procedurally clean challenge to the Kentucky lethal injection protocol with an unusually well developed record. Although it may be premature, it appears likely, due to subsequent events such as the SCOTUS staying the Texas execution of Carlton Turner late Thursday night, a de facto moratorium now exists on all non-volunteer execution dates. LethalInjection.org has all the relevant pleadings.

Stay / Commuted
September
26 Edward Harbison (Tenn.) (stay litigation materials)
27 Carlton Turner (Texas)
27 Tommy Arthur (Alabama)

Executions
September
20 Clifford Kimmel (Texas)
25 Michael Richards (Texas)

Pending Executions
October
3 Heliberto Chi (Texas)
12 Daryl Holton (Tenn. - vol)
16 Jack Jones Jr. (Arkansas)
17 Christopher Emmett (Va.)
25 Daniel Siebert (Alabama)

Week of September 10, 2007 -- In Favor of Life or Liberty

William Garner v. Mitchell, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21705 (6th Cir 9/11/2007) Five children were killed in a horrible fire. William Garner admitted to killing the kids in a house fire set to cover-up his burglary. He was 19, uneducated and borderline retarded. The confession was key to the ability to convict Garner. The Sixth Circuit threw out the confession & granted habeas relief. Put succinctly “Garner’s young age, indeterminate prior experience with the legal system, poor education, significant limitations in intellectual functioning, and the unrebutted expert evidence all tend to show that Garner’s Miranda waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently.”

In re Thomas Clyde Bowling. No. 06-5937 (6th Cir 9/12/2007) Transferring back to the district court certain Atkins related claims as not being successive. Specifically, the panel finds some issues raised successive but holds Bowling may litigate issues in the district court including: (A) “[a]pplying the procedural-default rule to bar a claim of mental retardation violates Atkins;” (B) “Kentucky’s procedures for adjudicating Atkins claims violate due process;” & (C.) “Kentucky’s definition of mental retardation and its procedures for determining mental retardation violate the Eighth Amendment.”**

John Rubio v. State, 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1125 (Tex. Crim. App. 9/12/2007) (majority/dissent) Statements from his codefendant/wife were introduced at trial without the opportunity to cross the declarant of those statements in violation of the Confrontation clause. On these facts the introduction of the statement could not be harmless.

Ex Parte Raymond Martinez, 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1121 (Tex. Crim. App. 9/12/2007) The special issues at bar did not provide a sufficient vehicle for Martinez’s mitigation evidence

Ralph Baze v. Comm. No. ---- (Ky 9/12/2007 )Stay granted as litigation was ongoing in the Kentucky courts prior to the Governor issuing a warrant for Baze & the Court would not have sufficient time to review the appeal(s) prior to the execution date.**

Week of September 10, 2007 -- In Favor of Death

Stevie Fields v. Brown,2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21669 (9th Cir 9/10/2007) A jury foreman who researched and shared Biblical quotes about capital punishment during sentencing deliberations did not violate Appellants right to a fair trial. Unrelated juror bias claim also rejected where a juror sat whose wife experienced an unsolved crime almost identical to the one at bar and where the perpetrator bore a passing resemblance to Fields. Note this is a pre-AEDPA case

State v. Steven Staley 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS ----- (Tex. Crim. App. 9/12/2007) TCCA dismisses, apparently for want of jurisdiction, a competency to be executed / attempts to involuntarily medicate to make competent claim.

Terrick Nooner v State, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 453 (Ark 9/13/2007) Pro se petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition, stay, and disqualification of justices denied, however, stay granted by federal courts.

Ronald Lafferty v. State, 2007 Utah LEXIS 176 (Utah 9/14/2007) Relief denied on claims arising from "five broad categories. First, he argues that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. Second, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing twenty-five of his claims on the basis that they could have been brought on direct appeal. Specifically, he argues that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was implied in each of these dismissed claims, thus creating adequate grounds for reviewing them in post-conviction proceedings. Third, he contests the post-conviction court's holding that he failed to establish the necessary facts to justify a trial on his claim that time and money constraints precluded his post-conviction counsel from satisfying the ABA guidelines for representing capital defendants. Fourth, Lafferty argues that an evaluating psychologist's testimony about "situational competence" in a subsequent and unrelated trial constitutes new evidence, entitling him to a new trial. Finally, Lafferty argues that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because his trial counsel also represented his co-defendant Dan with respect to charges arising from the same criminal episode."

Brenda Andrew v. State, 2007 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 35 (Okla Crim App 9/10/2007) Rehearing denied.

Week of September 17, 2007 -- In Favor of Life or Liberty

Edward Harbison v. Little, No. 3:06-01206 (M.D. Tenn 9/17/2007) Tennessee’s lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment.

Week of September 17, 2007 -- In Favor of Death

Paul Taylor v. Horn, 2007 WL 2728668 (3rd Cir. 9/20/2007) (Lexis cite unavailable) Relief denied on claims including: ": (1) denial of due process right to a competency hearing; (2) denial of due process right not to be tried while incompetent; (3) denial of effective assistance of counsel with respect to competency issues; (4) guilty plea, waivers of related rights, and waiver of specific defenses to first degree murder were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; (5) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that the waivers were knowing and intelligent; (6) state law error regarding waiver of jury for sentencing violated Taylor’s due process rights; (7) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate, present, and argue mitigating evidence at the penalty phase; (8) waiver of the right to present mitigating evidence was not knowing and intelligent; (9) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, develop, and present the defenses of diminished capacity and voluntary intoxication; and (10) ineffective assistance by appellate counsel." (via CapDefNet)

Albert Brown v. Ornoski, 2007 WL 2713113 (9th Cir. 9/19/2007) (Lexis cite unavailable) "[C]laims rejected [include] (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to adequately prepare a mental health expert to testify at the sentencing phase; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to conduct an adequate background investigation, which would have uncovered information that a neuropsychologist could have used to present compelling mitigation; and (3) lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment." (via CapDefNet)

Thomas Arthur v. Allen, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22506 (11th Cir 9/17/2007) (unpublished) Relief denied on a lethal injection claim as having been filed too late.

State v. Edward Harris, 2007 La. LEXIS 1974 (La. 9/21/2007) (plurality opinion) "In this case, the defendant has filed a pre-trial motion seeking to bar the prosecution from exercising during jury selection at a third trial any of its peremptory strikes statutorily authorized by La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 799.The defendant contends that the procedure set forth in Batson v. Kentucky is inadequate to protect his due process rights and that, given a hearing, he will be able to establish that there is a long history on the part of this prosecutor of peremptory strikes against African-American prospective jurors based improperly on race. The trial court has to this point denied the defendant's effort to have a hearing conducted on his motion to bar the prosecution from exercising peremptory strikes against African-Americans during jury selection. Accordingly, there is no record evidence on which to conclude that the defendant has made an insufficient showing to support his motion."

(Advance Sheet Week of September 24, 2007) -- In Favor of Death

Gregory Bey v. Bagley. No. 06-6474, 06-6539, 07-5059 (6th Cir 9/25/2007) Relief denied on claims arising from "other acts evidence" in the guilt phase.

Edward Harbison v. Bell, No. 06-6474, 06-6539, 07-5059 (6th Cir 9/27/2007) Relief “denied, respectively, as: 1) a request for authorization to file a successive section 2254 petition is denied as petitioner failed to meet the standard under the AEDPA that would allow him to do so; 2) for purposes of a motion for a COA, petitioner did not demonstrate that an adequate issue exists concerning whether extraordinary circumstances are present to justify Rule 60(b) relief; 3) a motion for a COA on a decision denying his request to appoint counsel to represent him in the clemency proceedings is denied; and 4) a motion for a stay of execution is denied.” [via Findlaw]

Darold Stenson v. Lambert, No. 05-99011 (9th Cir 9/24/2007) "Denial of habeas relief from a conviction and death sentence for the first-degree murders of petitioner's wife and business partner is affirmed as: 1) a state court's holding that the trial court did not violate Faretta v. California was not objectively unreasonable; 2) a state court properly denied a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during trial; 3) counsel's decision to concede petitioner's guilt during the sentencing phase of the trial was not objectively unreasonable under federal law; and 4) a state court's determination that a trial court did not improperly exclude mitigating evidence was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law." [via Findlaw]

Thomas Gallo v. State, 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1234 (Tex Crim App 9/26/2007) "Appellant raised thirteen points of error, among them complaints about the procedure whereby juries pass upon mental retardation issues and the trial court’s refusal to admit a defensive expert’s testimony regarding risk assessment and infanticide profiles. Both of these points merit reading and I encourage the capital practitioner to do so.. . . [another substantial point is] that the prosecutor’s use of profanity denied him due process." [via Warren Clark's Hack Lawyer]

State v. Robert Yates, 2007 Wash. LEXIS 710 (Wash 9/27/2007) (8-1) Relief denied on numerous claims including the freakish application of the death penalty in Washington, dismissal of a juror from the final panel because she opposed the death penalty, and jury instructions that meant the jury was not told that a guilty finding of aggravated murder requires that Yates' crimes follow a common scheme or plan. Notable here were claims that death sentences in Washington are inconsistently applied in Washington as Yates crimes did not approach the savagery & raw numbers that other murderers in the state had inflicted (specifically Gary Ridgeway, the so-called Green River Killer, who was permitted to plead to life).

Notable

Levenral Polk v. Sandoval, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21716 (9th Cir 9/11/2007) The trial court's jury instructions impermissibly relieved the State of its burden of proving deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Selected Excerpts from, & Commentary on, this Edition's Cases
[Note formatting may be off below this point.]

William Garner v. Mitchell, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21705 (6th Cir 9/11/2007) Five children were killed in a horrible fire. William Garner admitted to killing the kids in a house fire set to cover-up his burglary. He was 19, uneducated and borderline retarded. The confession was key to the ability to convict Garner. The Sixth Circuit threw out the confession & granted habeas relief. Put succinctly “Garner’s young age, indeterminate prior experience with the legal system, poor education, significant limitations in intellectual functioning, and the unrebutted expert evidence all tend to show that Garner’s Miranda waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently.” CapDefNet notes:

On September 11, 2007, the Sixth Circuit (Moore with Martin; dissent by Rogers) reversed the denial of William Garner’s habeas petition and granted relief on a claim that Garner’s waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing and intelligent. Garner v. Mitchell, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2593514 (6th Cir. Sept. 11, 2007). Although the claim was determined to be procedurally defaulted due to Garner’s failure to ever present it in state court, the panel majority found the state’s failure to raise the default defense in the district court served to waive it. The panel majority concluded that circuit precedent foreclosed the state’s argument that AEDPA’s provision requiring an express waiver of exhaustion meant that a procedural default premised on lack of exhaustion must be treated the same way, i.e., waiver of a default defense by the state must be express where the default resulted from failure to exhaust. Because the claim had not been raised in state court, the panel majority reviewed it de novo. It rejected the argument that some sort of modified § 2254(d) analysis was applicable because the state court had considered and rejected a related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the Miranda waiver. Next, the panel majority found no abuse of discretion by the district court in its expansion of the record to include some portions of an expert’s affidavit and reports, although it did find the district court abused its discretion in failing to also include parts necessary to understanding the expert’s opinions. The panel majority rejected the state’s reading of Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649 (2004) as precluding federal courts in AEDPA cases from ever considering facts that were not presented to the state court. The panel majority found that new evidence can be presented in federal court so long as the petitioner was not at fault for failing to present it in state court, or if the conditions of § 2254(e)(2) are met. Here, the state did not challenge the district court’s finding that the failure to present the expert materials in state court was the result of the state court’s denial of discovery, funding and an evidentiary hearing, not any lack of diligence on Garner’s part. As for the merits, the panel majority was persuaded by the new expert’s opinions about Garner’s inability to fully understand the Miranda warnings or his right to remain silent. The expert’s findings were based on her use of the Grisso test, which is specifically designed to "assess[ ] a defendant´s comprehension of the Miranda warnings themselves" and "provid[e] a comparison of the defendant´s performance to that of other defendants of various ages and levels of intelligence." Notably to the panel majority, the state failed to counter the expert’s opinions with its own expert. Finally, turning to the question of whether admission of Garner’s statements was harmless error, the panel majority found that the state had waived the issue by never arguing that any error was harmless.

Judge Rogers dissented, contending that the district court’s factual finding that Garner’s waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent was not clearly erroneous. Further, Judge Rogers argued that it was “a mistake to rely entirely on Garner´s subjective understanding of the Miranda warnings instead of relying on objective signs that Garner´s waiver was knowing and intelligent.” According to Judge Rogers, “the police officers´ objective understanding (of the suspect´s subjective understanding) should be the ultimately determinative factor in the majority´s analysis.” Even assuming, however, that is was permissible to ignore the objective evidence that the waiver was knowing and intelligent, Judge Rogers agreed with the district court’s reasons for discounting the new expert’s opinion. Judge Rogers disagreed with the panel majority’s procedural default ruling as well. Judge Rogers did not find that circuit precedent supported the majority’s ruling and would instead have agreed with the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion that an express waiver of the procedural default defense is required where the default is the result of the petitioner’s failure to raise the claim in state court. Moreover, even if discretion remains on whether to disregard a procedural default, Judge Rogers argued that “it is inconsistent with the guiding principles of AEDPA to exercise that discretion in the context of this case.” Judge Rogers concluded by finding that Garner’s remaining claims, which the majority found no need to reach, also did not entitle Garner to relief.

John Rubio v. State, 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1125 (Tex. Crim. App. 9/12/2007) (majority/dissent) Statements from his codefendant/wife were introduced at trial without the opportunity to cross the declarant of those statements in violation of the Confrontation clause. On these facts the introduction of the statement could not be harmless. From Warren Clark's Hack Lawyer:

Appellant was indicted for capital murder related to the killings and decapitation of his three children. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. At trial, the State called his common-law wife Camacho. However, she originally having been indicted as a co-defendant based on her participation in the murders, invoked her Fifth Amendment right to silence and refused to testify. Being as the case was tried prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the trial court permitted the State to introduce Camacho’s two written statements and one videotaped statement given to police. These statements contained contradictory assertions but most importantly, effectively rebutted Appellant’s claim of insanity and his stated motivations behind the senseless murders. Since the statements were clearly “testimonial” as defined by Crawford and the rule in Crawford is to be given retroactive effect, the Court found error in the admission of the statements. Further, after a lengthy harm analysis, the Court, by a 5-4 split, the majority concludes that it cannot state beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of the statements did not contribute to the jury’s verdict of guilt. Cause reversed and remanded for whole new trial.

Ex Parte Raymond Martinez, 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1121 (Tex. Crim. App. 9/12/2007) The special issues at bar did not provide a sufficient vehicle for Martinez’s mitigation evidence.

On September 12, 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a decision finding Raymond Martinez entitled to habeas relief based on his claim that the jury instructions at his 1989 trial failed to provide the jurors with a vehicle to give meaningful consideration to his mitigating evidence. Ex Parte Martinez, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2007 WL 2621488 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 12, 2007). Although this was Martinez’s second habeas petition, the court concluded it did not constitute an abuse of the writ. The court pointed out that Martinez had objected to the instructions at trial and unsuccessfully raised the issue on direct appeal. Although his claim of error was rejected by the state courts, the United States Supreme Court later ruled in Penry II that virtually identical instructions as given in Martinez’s case failed to cure the error identified in Penry I that was also present in Martinez’s case. Further, more recent Supreme Court decisions concerning Penry error provided grounds for raising the claim anew and compelled the court to find that the jury instructions on Texas’s three special sentencing issues “did not provide the jury with a vehicle to give ‘meaningful consideration’ to [Martinez’s] ‘constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence,’” i.e., evidence of past psychiatric problems, “because the strength of this evidence was not to negate the special issues but to provide ‘an explanation for his behavior that might reduce his moral culpability.’”

SCOTUS PREVIEW
Find below a collection of tools to this term relating to criminal law & capital cases. The category button on the right entitled SCOTUS links to all our posts on the Supreme Court & Baze links to all Baze materials.

Term previews include:

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times and Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen appeared on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation.” with “A Preview of the Supreme Court’s Next Term.”

Lyle Denniston on “Here & Now” in t his audio segment (RealPlayer required)

The American Constitution Society’s preview of the Supreme Court term is available for online viewing here. (Thomas C. Goldstein, Akin Gump Straus Hauer & Feld, LLP; Lecturer, Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School; Neal Katyal, John Carroll Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Christopher Landau, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Virginia Seitz, Sidley Austin LLP; Paul M. Smith, Jenner & Block LLP; & Carol Steiker, Howard J. and Katherine W. Aibel Professor of Law, Harvard Law School)

US Supreme Court 2007-2008 Crim Law Case List (via Medill)

Docket #	Case name	Court Appealed from	Issues
06-571	Watson, Michael v. U.S.	Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals	Guns, firearms
06-0694	U.S. v. Williams, Michael	11th Circuit Court of Appeals (April 6, 2006)	Child pornography, Protect Act, constitutionality, overbreadth, vagueness, First Amendment
06-0984	Medellin, Jose v. Texas	Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas (Nov. 15, 2006)	Capital case, International Court of Justice, consular notice, comity
06-1005	U.S. v.. Santos, Efrain & Diaz, Benedicto	7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Aug. 25, 2006)	Money laundering, proceeds
06-10119	Snyder, Allen v. Louisiana	Louisiana Supreme Court (Sept. 6, 2006)
06-1082	Virginia v. Moore	Supreme Court of Virginia
06-11543	Begay v. United States	Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
06-11612	Gonzalez v. United States
06-1181	Dada v. Keisler	Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
06-1195 / 06-1196	Boumediene, Lakhdar, et al. v. Bush, George, et al. / Al Odah, Khaled, et al. v. U.S.	Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia	Habeas corpus, Suspension Clause, executive power, prisoners of war, statutory construction
06-1346	Ali v. Achim	Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
06-1509	Boulware v. United States	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
06-1646	United States v. Rodriquez	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
06-6330	Kimbrough, Derrick v. U.S.	Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
06-6911	Logan, James v. U.S.	7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (July 6,2006)	Sentencing, firearms enhancement
06-7949	Gall, Brian Michael v. U.S.	Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
06-8273	Danforth, Stephen v. Minnesota	Minnesota Supreme Court (July 27, 2006)	constitutional criminal procedure, retroactivity, federalism, Teague v. Lane, evidence, testimony, Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause, videotaped testimony,
06-9130	Ali, Abdus-Shahid M.S. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al.	11th Circuit Court of Appeals (unreported-Oct. 19, 2006)	Federal Tort Claims Act, sovereign immunity, waiver, property search
07-5439	Baze v. Rees	Supreme Court of Kentucky

The following cases anticipated to be denied cert. on Monday morning as they were heard at the September 24, 2007. Any case not denied cert will be discussed at length on the daily blog. he first part of the list are cert. petitions from federal habeas corpus cases, the second half are cert petitions from state cases.

The federal habeas corpus, some of which already have execution dates, include:

4th Cir
Virginia
Christopher Scott Emmett, Petitioner v. Loretta K. Kelly, Warden

5th Cir
Mississippi
Earl Wesley Berry, Petitioner v. Christopher B. Epps, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
Texas
Lawrence Russell Brewer, Petitioner v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Director, TDCJ, Correctional Institutions Division
Marlin Enos Nelson, Petitioner v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Director, TDCJ, Correctional Institutions Division
Heliberto Chi, Petitioner v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Director, TDCJ, Correctional Institutions
Stephen Lindsey Moody, Petitioner v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Director, TDCH, Correctional Institutions
Carlton Akee Turner, Petitioner v. Nathaniel Quarterman

8th Cir
Arkansas
Frank Williams, Jr., Petitioner v. Larry B. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Missouri
Dennis Skillicorn, Petitioner v. Don Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center

9th Cir
California
David A. Raley, Petitioner v. Robert L. Ayres, Jr., Warden

10th Cir
Oklahoma
Terry Lyn Short, Petitioner v. Marty Sirmons, Warden

11th Cir
Alabama
Phillip D. Hallford, Petitioner v. Grantt Culliver, Warden, et a
Florida
Manuel Valle, Petitioner v. James R. McDonough, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
Luther Jerome Williams, Petitioner v. Richard F. Allen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
Georgia
Troy Anthony Davis, Petitioner v. William Terry, Warde n
Jack E. Alderman, Petitioner v. William Terry, Warden
Curtis Osborne, Petitioner v. Hilton Hall,
William Earl Lynd, Petitioner v. Hilton Hall, Warden

From the states (believed to be direct appeals or state postconviction):

Eugene Robert Tucker, Petitioner v. Arizona
Wendi Elizabeth Andriano, Petitioner v. ArizonaSteven M. Bell, Petitioner v. California
Bob Russell Williams, Jr., Petitioner v. California

Theodore Rodgers, Petitioner v. Florida
Antonio Melton, Petitioner v. Florida
Etheria Verdel Jackson, Petitioner v. Florida
Harold Lee Harvey, Petitioner v. Florida

Gregory Walker, Petitioner v. Georgia
Joseph Williams, Petitioner v. Georgia

Randy Lynn McKinney, Petitioner v. Idaho
Paul Ezra Rhoades, Petitioner v. Idaho
Gerald Ross Pizzuto, Jr., Petitioner v. Idaho
David Leslie Card, Petitioner v. Idaho

Cecil S. Sutherland, Petitioner v. Illinois
Ricardo Harris, Petitioner v. Illinois

Vincent C. Stopher, Petitioner v. Kentucky

Vernon Evans, Jr., Petitioner v. Maryland
Jody Lee Miles, Petitioner v. Maryland

Quintez Wren Hodges, Petitioner v. Mississippi
Xavier Brown, Petitioner v. Mississippi
Eddie Lee Howard, Jr., Petitioner v. Mississippi

Donte Johnson, Petitioner v. Nevada
Marlo Thomas, Petitioner v. Nevada

Alexander Charles Polke, Petitioner v. North CarolinaMarvin Johnson, Petitioner v. Ohio

Christian Michael Longo, Petitioner v. Oregon

Shelton Dewayne Jackson, Petitioner v. Oklahoma
Richard Tandy Smith, Petitioner v. Oklahoma John Charles Eichinger, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania

Marion Alexander Lindsey, Petitioner v. South Carolina
James Nathaniel Bryant, III, Petitioner v. South Carolina

Gerald Edward Marshall, Petitioner v. Texas
Charles Don Flores, Petitioner v. Texas
Charles Dean Hood, Petitioner v. Texas
Elroy Chester, Petitioner v. Texas
Donnie L. Roberts, Petitioner v. Texas

SMALL PRINT
SUBSCRIBING & ARCHIVES: Capital Defense Weekly is normally written by Karl Keys. CDW is published forty (40) times (or so) a year.

1997-2007 COPYRIGHT / DISCLAIMER / FAIR USE NOTICE: In plain English, you can use these materials without attribution (although I would appreciate the attribution) for any noncommercial purposes you see fit, (such as professional education, your newsletter, etc.) save those works created by others contained in this newsletter identified above; you can't use the intellectual property of others contained herein because under federal law I simply can't give away the rights of others to their intellectual property. Any derivative works must provide at least as equal or greater waiver of intellectual property rights. The legalese, copyright, disclaimers, notices, & terms of usage are available in full at http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/blog/about/. Where in conflict with the plain English version of this disclaimer / copyright notice, the terms at http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/blog/about/ control.

ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER: In plain English, due your own due diligence. Legalese: Use does not constitute establishment of attorney-client relationship. On a semi-regular basis cases in which I have participated in one manner or another (including as counsel of record) may be covered here. As always, the views expressed here represent my attempt to show what a given Court held, not whether a particular court reached the right decision. The views expressed herein do not reflect the views of my employer or indeed my views as counsel on the merits in any matter in which I have participated (which normally would be either "my client got shafted" or "the court made the correct decision"). The opinions noted above are normally "slip opinions" that may be modified or withdrawn by the issuing court without notice. Note we purposefully do not use Blue Book, or any other traditional, citation form.

*Execution information derived from Rick Halperin, DPIC & media accounts
**For purposes of full disclosure indicates possible prior involvement to one degree or another.
***Wendy Peoples, I am told, is responsible for CapDefNet's "Week-at-a-Glance."
****Please note that I have previously represented, or been involved in the representation of, Ralph Baze & Thomas C. Bowling, the litigants in the Kentucky lethal injection litigation.