|
|
News
Supreme Court News Resources
Supreme Court News Stories from 2009
- About
Broken Links
- Troy Davis Case Raising Novel Legal Issues
Condemned inmate Troy Anthony Davis filed
the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary when
he petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for
a hearing on his innocence claims.
But in August, for the first time in nearly half a century, the nation’s
highest court took a case filed directly to its docket that had not come up from
a lower court on appeal. Once again, Davis, who sits on death row for killing
an off-duty Savannah police officer in 1989, was spared execution. And since
the reprieve, Davis’ lawyers say a new witness has come forward on his
behalf.
(12/20/09, Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
- Press Wants Interviews on Death Row
More than 20 of the nation's leading news
organizations have signed on to a legal
brief that calls on the U.S. Supreme Court
to review a current federal ban on in-person
interviews with Death Row inmates, and
prohibitions against inmates telling the
press about their treatment, prison conditions
or actions of other inmates. The organizations
argue that these curbs violate the constitutional
right of free speech for prisoners. (12/12/09,
Chicago Sun-Times)
- Justices Say Capital Cases Must Weigh
War Trauma
A death penalty lawyer's failure to
present evidence of the trauma his client
suffered in combat in the Korean War requires
a new sentencing hearing, the Supreme Court
ruled unanimously on Monday. The decision
makes clear that lawyers for clients facing
the death penalty must present evidence of
post-traumatic stress disorder resulting
from military service if it is available.
The unsigned 15-page decision displayed unusual
solicitude for a death-row inmate, noting
that "our nation has a long tradition
of according leniency to veterans in recognition
of their service, especially for those who
fought on the front lines." (11/30/09,
New York Times)
- Subject of Famous Supreme Court Decision
Has Made a New Life
James Tyrone Woodson's death sentence was
overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976
because the jury had not been allowed to
consider any mitigating factors in his life
or about his peripheral role in the crime.
The Court not only rejected Woodson's death
sentence, but held that a mandatory death
penalty system was unconstitutional. ...
He eventually became eligible for parole
and was released in 1993. Since his release,
Woodson has led a crime-free life. He used
to be the kitchen manager at the Raleigh
Rescue Mission. He now has a job in Raleigh
and preaches at Wake Correctional Center.
(11/30/09, DPIC Update)
- Court Restores Death Sentence for Ohio
Inmate
On November 9, the U.S. Supreme Court granted
certiorari in the case of Bobby v. Van
Hook (No. 09–144) and issued a per
curiam opinion overturning a panel of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
which had granted Robert Van Hook a new
sentencing hearing based on ineffectiveness
of counsel. (11/16/09, DPIC Update)
- Supreme
Court to Review Effect of "Gross
Negligence" by Death Penalty Attorney
On October 13, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear Holland v. Florida, a case raising
the question of "whether 'gross negligence'
by a state-appointed defense attorney in
a death penalty case provides a basis for
extending the time to file a federal habeas
challenge, in a case where the habeas plea
was filed late despite repeated instructions
from the client." (10/19/09, DPIC Update)
- Sotomayor Casts First Vote on Court
Justice Sonia Sotomayor cast her first
vote in a Supreme Court death penalty case
late Monday, dissenting from a decision
that allowed the execution of a death row
inmate to proceed. The inmate, Jason Getsy,
was executed Tuesday morning by lethal
injection in Lucasville, Ohio.
Justice Sotomayor, who joined the court
this month, dissented along with three
members of its liberal wing, Justices
John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and Stephen G. Breyer. The court's
brief order offered no reasoning, and
the dissenters merely said they would
have granted Mr. Getsy's application
for a stay of execution.(8/18/09, The New
York Times)
- Justices Grant Troy Davis' Request
to Delay Execution
The Supreme Court has granted a condemned
Georgia inmate's request that his execution
be delayed as he attempts to prove his
innocence. The inmate, Troy Davis, has
gained international support for his long-standing
claim that he did not murder a Savannah
police officer nearly two decades ago.
Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered
a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings
of fact as to whether evidence that could
not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes
petitioner's innocence." (8/17/09,
CNN.com)
- Supreme
Court Postpones Troy Davis Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court just called Troy
Davis' lawyer - there will be no decision
(which also means no execution date)
until their court reconvenes in September.
Our movement must have struck a chord
with someone. We remain committed to
maintaining the momentum here and are
grateful for the additional time, months!
that Troy will now have with his family
and friends. We will post more information
on next steps soon. Please see the article below
about today's press conference in Savannah
delivering thousands of petitions to
District Attorney Larry Chisholm. (6/29/09,
NCADP)
- Hints
From Sotomayor on Death Penalty
As
a drug kingpin and his bodyguard, both
black, faced the first death penalty
trial in Manhattan since the days of
the Rosenbergs, their lawyers argued
that the practice of capital punishment
was racist. "We’re doing what
the death penalty has always done historically,
which is target minority people," one
of the lawyers said in 1998 as he asked
a Federal District Court judge to declare
the penalty unconstitutional. That judge
was Sonia Sotomayor - a Bronx-born woman
of Puerto Rican descent who as a young
lawyer had leveled much the same attack
on capital punishment. And as she listened
to the arguments that day, she acknowledged
there were many unresolved
"tensions" surrounding the
death penalty. But she flatly told the
lawyers she had no power to resolve them. "I
don’t as a judge," she said. "They
are not up to me. Ultimately, they are
up to Congress and the Supreme Court." (6/24/09,
New York Times)
- Supreme Court Rejects Due Process Right
to DNA Testing After Trial
In a 5-4 ruling on June 18, the U.S. Supreme
Court reversed a lower federal court ruling
holding that the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a convicted
inmate the right to a DNA test on evidence
that might prove his innocence. The defendant,
William Osborne, had been convicted in 1994
of sexual assault in Alaska and sentenced
to 26 years in prison. Alaska is one of only
4 states in the country that does not have
a law providing for access to DNA evidence
(the other 3 are Alabama, Massachusetts,
and Oklahoma, though Alabama recently passed
a law allowing limited access to DNA for
death row inmates). Osborne was willing to
pay for the test, which the state admitted
might have conclusively proven his guilt
or innocence. (6/23/09, DPIC Update)
- Supreme Court Rules Second Mental Retardation
Determination Does Not Constitute Double
Jeopardy
On June 1, in the case of Bobby v. Bies,
the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled
that Michael Bies had to bring his claim
of mental retardation before a separate state
hearing, thereby reversing the lower federal
courts that held such a hearing would constitute
double jeopardy. The Court held that Ohio
could contest Bies' assertion that he is
mentally retarded and that this does not
subject Bies to double jeopardy, despite
the fact that the Ohio Supreme Court in 1996
had recognized his mental retardation as
a mitigating factor in upholding his original
death sentence. The Court made clear that
it intended the states to have the primary
responsibility for implementing Atkins. (In
2002, the United States Supreme Court held
in Atkins v. Virginia that the Eighth Amendment
to the Constitution bars execution of mentally
retarded offenders.). Justice Ginsburg wrote
the opinion in Bies. (6/15/09, DPIC Update)
- Supreme Court Rules that
Federal Funding Extends to State Clemency
Representation
On April 1, the U.S. Supreme Court held in
Harbison v. Bell that federally appointed
counsel can represent indigent capital clients
in state clemency procedures. The case, which
was argued before the Supreme Court in January
2009, asked whether a federal law that provides
lawyers to indigent state death row inmates
for parts of their appeal guarantees them
the continuation of that representation through
the state clemency process. The law says
that such lawyers are to represent their
clients in "all available post-conviction
process," including "proceedings
for executive or other clemency." Federal
appeals courts had been divided over the
interpretation of the law, with one side
saying that the law applies only to federal
clemency proceedings.
(4/6/09, DPIC Update)
- Supreme Court Justices Raise Concerns
About Time on Death Row
On March 9, the U.S. Supreme Court declined
review in Thompson v. McNeil, but three
Justices issued strongly worded statements
about the importance of the legal issue
raised. William Thompson has been on death
row in Florida for 32 years. He claimed
the excessive time he has spent on death
row amounted to cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eighth Amendment. Justice John
Paul Stevens, in an opinion respecting
the denial of certiorari, called the treatment
of the defendant during his 32 years on
death row "dehumanizing," noting
that Thompson "has endured especially
severe conditions of confinement, spending
up to 23 hours per day in isolation in a
6- by 9-foot cell" and has experienced
two stays of execution "only shortly
before he was scheduled to be put to death."
Justice Stevens added that neither retribution
nor deterrence were served in such a case
and “a
punishment of death after significant delay
is 'so totally without penological
justification that it results in the gratuitous
infliction of suffering.'"
(3/16/09, DPIC Update)
- Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Mental Retardation
Case
On January 16, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted Ohio's petition for a writ of certiorari
in Bobby v. Bies. The state is asking the
Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Court granting the defendant, Michael Bies,
habeas corpus relief based on a violation
of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. (1/26/09, DPIC Update)
News | National
News | World
News | News
Commentary
|
|
|
|
|