NCJ Number
111118
Journal
University of California Davis Law Review Volume: 18 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1985) Pages: 1177-1219
Date Published
1985
Length
43 pages
Annotation
While the legitimacy of the death penalty as an appropriate form of punishment will continue to be debated, what should not be open to debate is the need, when a life is at stake, to safeguard the individual's rights and to minimize the possibility of unwarranted or premature execution.
Abstract
The death penalty has long been recognized as qualitatively unique in terms of its severity and finality, and the procedures governing capital cases have long been distinct from all other felony trials. The trial consists of two hearings -- one for assessing guilt, the other following conviction to decide if the totality of the circumstances warrants execution. Courts frequently have overturned death sentences for constitutional error during either proceeding, and appeals courts have reversed decisions in cases where constitutional error prevented the jury from fully considering the case during sentencing. Further, it has been suggested that a third to a half of trial lawyers are inadequately prepared for trial. While the civil client may sue the neglectful lawyer, this option is neither practical nor useful for the convicted defendant facing execution. For all these reasons, Federal postconviction relief must remain available in capital cases. The writ of habeas corpus has long provided that relief. Recently, the ability to secure habeas corpus review has been eroded by U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Wainwright v. Sykes and Engle v. Isaac). It is argued that limiting preclusion rules place procedural obstacles that are inappropriate to death penalty cases. 219 footnotes.