MENU

Death Penalty

Hall v. Florida - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 7-15-14 featuring Kent Scheidegger
Kent S. Scheidegger July 15, 2014

On May 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Hall v. Florida. The question in the case is whether the Florida scheme for identifying intellectually disabled defendants in capital cases violates Atkins v. Virginia. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the relevant Florida law, under which all further exploration of intellectual disability is foreclosed if a prisoner is deemed to have an IQ above 70,­ creates an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed, and thus is unconstitutional.  Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Justices Scalia and Thomas, joined. The decision of the Supreme Court of Florida was reversed and the case remanded.

To discuss the case, we have Mr. Kent Scheidegger, who is the Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. 

White v. Woodall - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-29-14 featuring Robert Blecker
Robert Blecker April 29, 2014

Robert BleckerOn April 23, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in White v. Woodall. The case presents two questions: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit violated the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by granting habeas relief because a Kentucky trial court refused to issue an instruction to the jury telling it not to draw adverse inferences from the defendant's silence at the sentencing phase in a death penalty case; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit violated the harmless error standard in Brecht v. Abrahamson in ruling that the absence of a no adverse inference instruction was not harmless in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt and in the face of a guilty pleas to the crimes and aggravators.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that, because the Kentucky Supreme Court's rejection of respondent's Fifth Amendment adverse inference claim was not objectively unreasonable, the Sixth Circuit erred in granting the writ of habeas and the Court need not reach the harmless error issue. Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer authored a dissenting opinion, which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined.

To discuss the case, we have Robert Blecker who is a Professor of Criminal Law and 8th Amendment Studies at New York Law School and author of The Death of Punishment.

White v. Woodall - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 1-13-14 featuring Robert Blecker
Robert Blecker January 13, 2014

Robert BleckerOn December 11, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in White v. Woodall. The case presents two questions: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit violated the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by granting habeas relief because a Kentucky trial court refused to issue an instruction to the jury telling it not to draw adverse inferences from the defendant's silence at the sentencing phase in a death penalty case, even though no Supreme Court precedent establishes that such an instruction must be given at the penalty phase when a non-testifying defendant has pled guilty to the crimes and aggravating circumstances; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit violated the harmless error standard in Brecht v. Abrahamson in ruling that the absence of a no adverse inference instruction was not harmless in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt and in the face of a guilty pleas to the crimes and aggravators.

To discuss the case, we have Robert Blecker who is a Professor of Law at the New York Law School.

Boyer v. Louisiana - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 5-7-13 featuring Amy Moore
Amy Moore May 07, 2013

Amy MooreOn April 29, 2013, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Boyer v. Louisiana. The question in this case was whether, when a criminal death penalty trial is delayed due to the state’s failure to fund defense counsel, that delay should count against against the state in a subsequent “speedy trial” analysis.

The case was dismissed as improvidently granted.  Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, arguing that the factual record demonstrated  most of the delay at issue was not actually caused by the state breakdown in funding.  Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, that would have reached the merits, held the state responsible for the delay, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, who is an Associate Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.

[Listen now!]