Chapter 1 The Death Penalty： Past and Present 1
Ⅰ.Introduction 1
Ⅱ.A Retrospective Analysis of the Death Penalty 2
A.The Colonial Period 2
B.The Age of Enlightenment and the Early Movement to Abolish the Death Penalty 2
1.From Europe to the Colonies： The Impact of Enlightenment 2
2.Changes in the Death Penalty from 1790-1950 4
Ⅲ.Early Supreme Court Decisions on the Death Penalty 6
A.Wilkerson v.Utah： Death by Firing Squad 7
B.In re Kemmler： Death by Electrocution 8
C.Louisiana ex rel.Francis v.Resweber： The Constitutionality of Being Executed Twice 11
D.Additional Changes in the Death Penalty Prior to 1972 12
Ⅳ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 13
Ⅴ.Conclusion 14
Cases Briefed in Chapter 1 16
Case Briefs 16
Wilkerson v.Utah, 99 U.S.130 (1878) 16
In re Kemmler, 136 U.S.436 (1890) 18
Louisiana ex rel.Francis v.Resweber, 329 U.S.459 (1947) 20
Internet Resources 22
Notes 22
Chapter 2 The Foundation Cases： Furman v.Georgia and Gregg v.Georgia 27
Ⅰ.Introduction 27
Ⅱ.Furman v.Georgia (1972)： The Death Penalty Is Unconstitutional 28
A.The Background 28
B.The Facts 28
C.The Majority Opinions 29
D.The Dissenting Opinions 31
Ⅲ.Gregg v.Georgia (1976)： The Death Penalty Is Constitutional in Some Cases 32
A.The Background 32
B.The Facts 33
C.The Majority Opinions 33
D.The Dissenting Opinions 36
Ⅳ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 37
Ⅴ.Conclusion 37
Cases Briefed in Chapter 2 38
Case Briefs 38
Furman v.Georgia, 408 U.S.238 (1972) 38
Gregg v.Georgia, 428 U.S.153 (1976) 40
Internet Resources 42
Chapter 3 Racial Discrimination and the Death Penalty 45
Ⅰ.Introduction 45
Ⅱ.Statistics and Bias in Death Penalty Cases and Jury Selection in Capital Proceedings 45
Ⅲ.Legislative Responses to Discrimination in Capital Proceedings 47
A.Federal Response： The Proposed Racial Justice Act and Its Failure 47
B.State Responses 47
1.Legislation 47
2.State-Level Lack of Legislation 48
Ⅳ.The Legal Community： An Assessment of Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys,and Judges 54
A.District Attorneys 54
B.Defense Attorneys 57
C.Judges 59
Ⅴ.The Jury： A Biased Bunch or Victims of Misinformation? 61
A.Jury Selection 62
B.Peremptory Challenges 64
Ⅵ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 68
Ⅶ.Conclusion 68
Cases Briefed in Chapter 3 69
Case Briefs 70
McCleskey v.Kemp, 481 U.S.279 (1987) 72
Turner v.Murray, 476 U.S.28 (1986) 74
Miller-El v.Dretke, 545 U.S.231 (2005) 75
Snyder v.Louisiana, 552 U.S.____(2008) 78
Internet Resources 80
Notes 80
Chapter 4 The Mentally Impaired and the Death Penalty 87
Ⅰ.Introduction 87
Ⅱ.Supreme Court Cases： Past and Present 87
A.Starting Point： Penry v.Lynaugh (1989) 87
B.Executing the Mentally Retarded is Now Unconstitutional： Atkins v.Virginia 88
C.Cases after Atkins 89
Ⅲ.Emerging Issues 91
A.Definition of Mental Retardation 91
B.The Fear of "Faking" 103
C.Mental Retardation versus Mental Illness 104
D.What Is to Be Done with the Mentally Retarded Now on Death Row? 105
Ⅳ.Insanity and the Death Penalty 105
A.Insanity： Different from Other Mental Impairments 105
B.Reasons for Not Executing the Insane 106
1.Failure to Achieve Penological Goals 106
a.Deterrence 106
b.Retribution 107
2.Theological 107
3.Humanity 107
C.Mental Competence and the Death Penalty 108
Ⅴ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 111
Ⅵ.Conclusion 111
Cases Briefed in Chapter 4 112
Case Briefs 113
Ford v.Wainwright, 477 U.S.399 (1986) 113
Penry v.Lynaugh, 492 U.S.302 (1989) 114
Atkins v.Virginia, 536 U.S.304 (2002) 116
Singleton v.Norris, 319 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir.2003) 118
Tennard v.Dretke, 542 U.S.274 (2004) 119
Panetti v.Quarterman, 551 U.S.____ (2007) 121
Internet Resources 123
Notes 124
Chapter 5 Death Penalty for Juveniles 129
Ⅰ.Introduction 129
Ⅱ.Thompson v.Oklahoma： Executing Juveniles Age 15 and Younger Is Unconstitutional 130
A.Facts 130
B.The Court’s Holding 130
C.Reasoning 131
Ⅲ.Stanford v.Kentucky： Executing Juveniles Ages 16 to 17 Is Constitutional 131
A.Facts 131
B.The Court’s Holding 132
C.Reasoning 132
Ⅳ.Atkins v.Virginia： A Case Involving the Mentally Retarded,but a Prelude to the Abolition of the Juvenile Death Penalty 133
A.The Issue and Holding 133
B.Significance of Atkins for the Juvenile Death Penalty： The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Simmons v.Roper 134
Ⅴ.Roper v.Simmons： The Supreme Court Declares the Execution of Juveniles Unconstitutional 135
A.Facts 135
B.The Holding 135
C.Majority Opinion 136
D.Dissenting Opinions 138
Ⅵ.Evaluating Evolving Standards： Thompson, Stanford, and Simmons 140
Ⅶ.A Comparison of Thompson, Stanford, and Simmons 142
Ⅷ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 144
Ⅸ.Conclusion 145
Cases Briefed in Chapter 5 146
Case Briefs 146
Thompson v.Oklahoma, 487 U.S.815 (1988) 146
Stanford v.Kentucky, 492 U.S.361 (1989) 148
Roper v.Simmons, ____U.S.____, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) 149
Internet Resources 151
Notes 152
Chapter 6 Juries, Jurors, and the Death Penalty 155
Ⅰ.Introduction 155
Ⅱ.The Ultimate Responsibility： Bifurcated Trials and the Role of Capital Juries 156
A.Jury Override： Judges Trumping Juries 156
B.Ring v.Arizona： The End of Judicial Sentencing in Capital Cases? 158
Ⅲ.Jury Instructions： Guided Discretion in Capital Cases 159
A.Guilt Phase： Lesser Included Offenses 160
B.Penalty Phase： Future Dangerousness and Parole Eligibility 161
Ⅳ.Jury Selection in Capital Cases： Death Qualification 163
Ⅴ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 165
Ⅵ.Conclusion 167
Cases Briefed in Chapter 6 168
Case Briefs 169
Witherspoon v.Illinois, 391 U.S.510 (1968) 169
Beck v.Alabama, 447 U.S.625 (1980) 171
Lockhart v.McCree, 476 U.S.162 (1986) 172
Mills v.Maryland, 483 U.S.367 (1988) 174
Morgan v.Illinois, 504 U.S.719 (1992) 175
Simmons v.South Carolina, 512 U.S.154 (1994) 177
Weeks v.Angelone, 528 U.S.225 (2000) 179
Ring v.Arizona, 536 U.S.584 (2003) 180
Uttecht v.Brown, 551 U.S.____ (2007) 182
Internet Resources 184
Notes 185
Chapter 7 The Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Death Penalty 189
Ⅰ.Introduction 189
Ⅱ.Strickland： A Two-Part Test for Deciding Ineffective Assistance Claims 190
Ⅲ.Application of Strickland in Subsequent Cases 191
Ⅳ.Applying AEDPA Restrictions to Sixth Amendment Challenges in Death Penalty Cases 192
V.Evaluating Ineffective Assistance in the Twenty-First Century： Objective Standards for Disadvantaged Defendants 194
Ⅵ.State and Local Indigent Defense Systems and Funding 194
Ⅶ.Recent Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 196
A.Mickens v.Taylor： Successive Representation Permitted Unless Adverse Consequences Exist 197
B.Wiggins v.Smith： Counsel’s Duty to Discover a Dysfunctional Background 199
C.Florida v.Nixon： The Supreme Court Closes the Door on Silence 200
D.Rompilla v.Beard： Right to Investigate Gains Momentum 201
E.Schriro v.Landrigan： Interference Is Not Incompetence 202
F.Arave v.Hoffman： The Right to Effective Plea Bargaining 203
Ⅷ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 204
Ⅸ.Conclusion 206
Cases Briefed in Chapter 7 207
Case Briefs 209
Strickland v.Washington, 466 U.S.688 (1984) 209
Lockhart v.Fretwell, 506 U.S.364 (1993) 210
Mickens v.Taylor, 535 U.S.162 (2002) 212
Bell v.Cone, 535 U.S.685 (2002) 213
Wiggins v.Smith, 539 U.S.510 (2003) 215
Florida v.Nixon, 543 U.S.175 (2004) 216
Rompilla v.Beard, 545 U.S.374 (2005) 218
Schriro v.Landrigan, 550 U.S.____ (2007) 221
Internet Resources 223
Notes 224
Chapter 8 Due Process and the Death Penalty 229
Ⅰ.Introduction 229
Ⅱ.Tracing the Origin of Due Process in Death Penalty Cases 230
A.Taking a Two-Part Approach： Due Process and Cruel and Unusual Punishment 230
1.The Concept of Guided Discretion 230
a.Woodson v.North Carolina 231
b.Lockett v.Ohio 231
c.Eddings v.Oklahoma 232
d.Gardner v.Florida 232
2.The Evolution of the "Guided Discretion" Standard 233
Ⅲ.Recent Death Penalty Cases Dealing with Due Process 234
A.Admissibility of Psychiatric Examinations 234
B.Future Dangerousness and Capital Sentencing 236
C.The Importance of the "Jury" Verdict 236
D.Shackling and the Defendant’s Entitlement to the Presumption of Innocence 237
E.Third-Party Guilt Evidence and Admissibility Standards 238
Ⅳ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 240
Ⅴ.Conclusion 241
Cases Briefed in Chapter 8 242
Case Briefs 243
Gardner v.Florida, 430 U.S.349 (1977) 243
Estelle v.Smith, 451 U.S.454 (1981) 244
Eddings v.Oklahoma, 455 U.S.104 (1982) 246
Gray v.Netherland, 518 U.S.152 (1996) 247
Sattazahn v.Pennsylvania, 537 U.S.101 (2003) 249
Deck v.Missouri, 544 U.S.622 (2005) 250
Holmes v.South Carolina, 547 U.S.319 (2006) 252
Internet Resources 254
Notes 255
Chapter 9 Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Death Penalty Cases 259
Ⅰ.Introduction 259
Ⅱ.Gregg v.Georgia and the Emerging Importance of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 260
Ⅲ.Aggravating Factors 269
A.General Procedural Requirements 269
B.Vagueness and Guided (or Unguided) Discretion 270
C.The Special Case of Victim Impact Statements 271
D.The Special Case of Future Dangerousness 272
Ⅳ.Mitigating Factors 273
A.General Procedural Requirements 274
B.Evidence Allowed 274
C.Jury Instructions 275
Ⅴ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 277
Ⅵ.Conclusion 278
Cases Briefed in Chapter 9 279
Case Briefs 281
Woodson v.North Carolina, 428 U.S.280 (1976) 281
Presnell v.Georgia, 439 U.S.14 (1978) 282
Lockett v.Ohio, 438 U.S.586 (1978) 284
Barefoot v.Estelle, 463 U.S.880 (1983) 285
Lewis v.Jeffers, 497 U.S.764 (1990) 286
Payne v.Tennessee, 501 U.S.808 (1991) 289
McKoy v.North Carolina, 494 U.S.433 (1990) 288
Kansas v.Marsh, 458 U.S.163 (2006) 291
Brewer v.Quarterman, 550 U.S.____ (2007) 293
Internet Resources 294
Notes 295
Chapter 10 Appeals, Habeas Corpus, and the Death Penalty 301
Ⅰ.Introduction 301
Ⅱ.The Appellate Process 303
Ⅲ.The Great Writ 304
A.History 304
B.The Battle over Successive Petitions and the Road to the AEDPA 306
1.The Good Faith/Bad Faith Rule 306
2.New-Claim Successive Petitions Rule 306
3.The Impact of Gregg on Successive Petitions 307
C.The AEDPA 309
Ⅳ.Current Consequences of the AEDPA 312
A.Retroactivity 312
B.Statute of Limitations and Actual Innocence 312
1.Statute of Limitations 312
2.Actual Innocence 314
Ⅴ.The Use of Habeas Corpus to Determine the Constitutionality of Methods of Execution 318
Ⅵ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 320
Ⅶ.Conclusion 322
Cases Briefed in Chapter 10 323
Case Briefs 324
Rose v.Lundy, 455 U.S.509 (1982) 324
McCleskey v.Zant, 499 U.S.467 (1991) 326
Sawyer v.Whitley, 505 U.S.333 (1992) 328
Herrera v.Collins, 506 U.S.390 (1993) 330
Felker v.Turpin, 518 U.S.651 (1996) 333
Nelson v.Campbell, 541 U.S.637 (2004) 334
House v.Bell, 547 U.S.____ (2007) 336
Lawrence v.Florida, 549 U.S.____ (2007) 338
Internet Resources 339
Notes 340
Chapter 11 Evolving Standards of Decency and the Eighth Amendment’s Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment 345
Ⅰ.Introduction 345
Ⅱ.Methods of Execution 346
Ⅲ.Proportionality of Punishment 350
A.Types of Crimes 351
B.Degree of Involvement in Killing 352
C.Proportionality Review 353
Ⅳ.The Role of Public Opinion and National Consensus 353
Ⅴ.International Perspectives 355
Ⅵ.In Summary, What Do these Cases Say? 357
Ⅶ.Conclusion 358
Cases Briefed in Chapter 11 359
Case Briefs 360
Pulley v.Harris, 465 U.S.37 (1984) 360
Tison v.Arizona, 481 U.S.137 (1987) 361
Baze v.Rees, 553 U.S.____ (2008) 363
Kennedy v.Louisiana, 554 U.S.____ (2008) 365
Internet Resources 368
Notes 369
Chapter 12 Other Issues, Trends, and the Future of the Death Penalty 373
Ⅰ.Introduction 373
Ⅱ.Justifications for Punishment and the Death Penalty 374
A.Retribution and the Death Penalty 375
B.Deterrence and the Death Penalty 377
C.Incapacitation and the Death Penalty 378
D.The Absence of a Justification? The Supreme Court’s Reasons for the Death Penalty 379
Ⅲ.Flaws in the Administration of the Death Penalty and Moratoria 380
Ⅳ.Trends in the Death Penalty 384
Ⅴ.The Future 387
Internet Resources 388
Notes 388
Index 391