During its 2001-02 term, the United States Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings: one barring the execution of the mentally retarded and another which requires such fundamental changes in how some states impose death sentences that it has led to special legislative sessions. Thus far this year, no death row appeal taken on by the Supreme Court seems to open the door to such sweeping change. Yet the court clearly is keeping an eye on the administration of our country’s ultimate punishment – good news for moratorium advocates! See right for a summary of the death penalty issues now under Court scrutiny.
Racial bias in jury selection:
In October, the court heard the case of Miller-El v. Cockrell. At issue was whether blacks were unfairly kept off Thomas Miller-El’s original jury. Miller-El is an African American man from Texas convicted of the murder of a white hotel clerk. His lawyers are challenging his 1986 conviction because they say Dallas County prosecutors engaged in unconstitutional, race-based jury selection tactics in order to exclude African American jurors. Back in 1986, the Supreme Court forbid the exclusion of jurors based on race (Batson v. Kentucky), but the practice has continued, often without appeals court scrutiny. Miller-El’s evidence includes a manual for Dallas prosecutors that recommended excluding blacks and minorities from juries and a Dallas Morning News investigation of 100 trials in which prosecutors struck 92% of black jurors.
New Evidence:
On November 6, 2002, the court heard oral arguments in the case of Tennessee death row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman. At issue is when a defendant can present new evidence in federal court. Abdur’Rahman claims that prosecutors misled jurors and withheld exculpatory evidence (including evidence that his clothes had no blood on them). In recent years, men have been executed without having their new evidence of innocence ever heard by any court due to procedural bars. The question in this case is whether Abdur’Rahman will ever have the merits of his appeal heard before he is executed.
Ineffective defense counsel:
Also in Abdur’Rahman’s case, the court will consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. A majority of Abdur’Rahman’s original jurors now say that if they had heard the mitigating evidence that his lawyer failed to provide, they would not have sentenced him to death.
The court will also clarify standards for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in Wiggins v. Corcoran. At Kevin Wiggins’ trial, his appointed attorney did not tell the jury that Wiggins suffered from mental retardation or that he was beaten and raped as a child after being abandoned by his mother. Such mitigating evidence might have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence instead of death. Wiggins may also have a valid claim of innocence, given that his conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and jailhouse snitch testimony. Questions linger about whether Wiggins was the actual trigger person in the murder, which is required for the death penalty.
