NCJ Number
117216
Date Published
1987
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This essay argues that the appeals process fails to redress all sentencing errors or unfairness that might occur during the trial of capital cases by citing practices of the Georgia and Florida Supreme Courts, examining the length of appeals, and highlighting four cases.
Abstract
Statistics on death sentences imposed from the early 1970s to 1985 show a relatively high rate of reversal, reflecting the unique complexity of capital trials. The appeal process, however, cannot always resolve errors resulting from inadequate defense counsel and underlying inconsistencies in the system. A discussion of methods used by the Florida and Georgia Supreme Courts to review all capital cases demonstrates how disparities and arbitrariness remain unchecked. It also notes that appellate review does not remedy racial disparities in sentencing. An analysis of the length of appeals in capital cases refutes the claim that such appeals are unnecessarily prolonged or frivolous. Attempts by Federal courts to speed up capital appeals are described. Four cases -- Charles Brooks, James Autry, Alpha Otis Stephens, and Roosevelt Green -- illustrate how procedures for handling final appeals contravene basic standards of fairness. Footnotes.