* "serious" execution date / (s) stay believed likely / (V) Volunteer / note this list may exclude any recently added execution date
[DPIC has more]

• Thaler v. Anthony Haynes, No. 09-2730 (2/22/2010)  "[A] trial judge need not personally observe a potential juror’s behavior in deciding later whether that juror was denied a seat on the panel because of race, despite the prosecutor’s claim that she was excluded because of her demeanor under questioning.  No prior ruling of the Court, the Justices said in an unsigned, apparently unanimous opinion, requires that the judge have been on hand during jury selection in order to evaluate a claimed violation of Batson v. Kentucky, when the use of a peremptory strike was based on a claim of juror demeanor."  [via SCOTUSBlog]

• Johnson v. US, No. 08–6925 (3/2/2019) “A circuit court’s judgment upholding a sentence for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, which was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, is reversed where the Florida felony offense of battery by actually and intentionally touching another person does not have as an element the use of physical force against the person of another, and thus does not constitute a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. section 924(e)(1).” [via  Findlaw]

• Wilkins v. Gaddy, No. 08–10914  (2/22/2010) "In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by a correctional officer, a court of appeals’ affirmance of dismissal of the complaint is reversed where the district court’s approach (based on its determination that plaintiff’s injuries were “de minimis”) was at odds with precedent directing it to decide excessive force claims based on the nature of the force, rather than the extent of the injury." [via FindLaw]
  

• Florida v. Powell, No. 08–1175 (2/23/2010)  "In a state prosecution for possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a reversal of defendant’s conviction on Miranda grounds is reversed where the police satisfied Miranda’s requirements by informing defendant that he had “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of their questions,” and that he had “the right to use any of his rights at any time he wanted during the interview.” [via FindLaw]
  

• Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08–680 (2/24/2010)  "In a sexual child abuse prosecution, the state court of appeals’ reversal of defendant’s conviction is reversed where defendant experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between first and second attempts at interrogation, and thus Edwards did not mandate suppression of defendant’s statements during the second interrogation." [via FindLaw]
  

• Phillip Anthony Summers v. State,   2010 OK CR 5; 2010 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 5 ( Okla. Crim. App.2/25/2010) (dissent)  “This Court finds that Summers’ right to a fair trial and to the opportunity to present a complete defense was unconstitutionally violated by the trial court’s wholesale exclusion of the testimony of Johnson.  Furthermore, given the highly contested nature of the evidence presented and the limitations of the State’s evidence—in particular, no forensic evidence linking Phillip Summers to either the crime scene or the murder weapons—this Court cannot conclude that this constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

• Ex parte Charles Hood, No. AP-75,370; 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 12 &  2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2/24/2010) (dissent)(plurality) A sharply divided plurality grants relief on a Penry claim without ever mentioning the salacious allegations that have won this case international condemnation. Specifically, the jury instructions limited the ability of the jurors  to fully consider in mitigation issues like the condemned’s learning disabilities, being hit over the head with a pipe for discipline, and had a  that he had a truck back over him as toddler causing developmental issues and breaking his legs. Steve Hall effectively rounds up the coverage of the decision here.

• Fred Lawrence Robinson v. Schriro, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 3605 (9th Cir 2/22/2010) New trial ordered based on the erroneous finding the murder at issue was committed in an especially cruel, heinous, or depraved manner AND trial counsel delivered ineffective assistance of counsel. (unpublished portion of the opinion available at 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS3589).

• Alwin C. Tumblin v. State, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 258 (FL 2/25/2010) “We conclude that reversible error occurred in the guilt phase of the trial, which affected both the guilt phase and the penalty phase, when a police officer gave his opinion of the truthfulness of a key State witness.”

• James Harrison v. Gillespie,  2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 3606 (9th Cir 2/22/2010) (superseding opinion) Trial court abused its discretion by declaring a mistrial without first polling jury.  Double jeopardy held to have attached.  State may not again seek death on retrial.

• State v. Ryan Wesley  Kuhs,  2010 Ariz. LEXIS 13; 576 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 13 (Az 2/24/2010)  Relief denied on numerous claims including: (1) trial court erred by finding him competent to stand trial without holding an evidentiary hearing; (2) during the State's guilt phase closing argument, the victim's stepmother cried audibly; (3) sufficiency of the evidence to support the felony-murder conviction; (4)  denial of motion to strike jurors for cause; (5)  the trial judge erred in rejecting the jury's "verdict" that it could not unanimously decide on a sentence of life or death; (6)  the trial court coerced the jury verdict by giving an impasse instruction after the jury had twice indicated that it was deadlocked; (7) sending the jury back to deliberate after two separate impasse or deadlock notes; (8)  jury instructions regarding sympathy; (9) Arizona's death-by-lethal-injection statute; (10)  review the jury's finding of aggravating circumstances and verdict of death for abuse of discretion. A.R.S. § 13-756 (Supp. 2009). 

• Michael Wall Hall v. Thaler,  2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 3611 (5th Cir 2/22/2010) COA and Relief denied on claims relating to whether Mr. Hall is mental retarded, “whether the Texas death penalty statute or the mitigation special issue submitted to the jury violates the Constitution.”

If you have problem with this edition it is available at http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/100308.htm for printing. We'd simply ask that before printing consider our environment and saving our trees.  If you find this email useful, feel free to forward it or excerpt it. We prefer attribution, but don't require it.

As a reminder,we don't charge a subscription fee, but if you find the weekly useful we'd appreciate even a nominal tax deductible donation to a nonprofit involved in some aspect of the capital punishment issue, such as  Pennsylvanians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty  (website/donate)(where I'm currently the co-chair) or the Fair Trial Initiative (website/donate).  On each of the above links you're able to donate as little or as much as you want, or even set up a monthly automated giving amount.  As always, thanks for reading, and special thanks go to Steve Hall whose Stand Down website is often borrowed from here, as well as our "researchers" and "reporters" who have asked not to be named.  - k