The Attorney–Client Relationship in Capital Cases and Its Impact on Juror Receptivity to Mitigation Evidence

The United States Supreme Court has placed a great deal of trust in the ability and willingness of capital jurors to consider mitigation evidence during sentencing deliberations as a constitutional aspect of capital sentencing. This paper examines the jurors’ perception of the affective warmth and friendliness shared by attorney and client, and the degree to which the defense attorney appears to regard the defendant as a close working member of the defense team. Using data obtained from interviews with 725 jurors in capital trials, regression analysis revealed that respondents were more receptive to mitigation evidence when they viewed the relationship between the attorney and client as warm and friendly, but less receptive when they reported the attorney–client as having a close working relationship. Analysis of interaction terms revealed that the negative effects of the close working relationship can be suppressed by modeling a warm affective attorney–client relationship.     

Tinkering with the Machinery of Death: An Analysis of Juror Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials During Two Statutory Eras

The Texas death penalty statute originally approved by the United States Supreme Court in Jurek v. Texas (1976) was legislatively amended as a result of the Court’s decision in Penry v. Lynaugh (1989). The changes were intended to focus on increasing jurors’ ability to give mitigating effect to evidence in sentencing. Using data from the Capital Jury Project, we compared juror comprehension of sentencing guidelines, punishment responsibility, and deliberations in sentencing among a sample of 123 Texas jurors who deliberated under the Jurek and Penry statutes. In each area, we found that the amended statute failed to guide capital juror decision-making as intended.     

The Role of Mitigating Factors in Capital Sentencing Before and After McKoy v. North Carolina

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that capital jurors do not have to be unanimous in deciding whether or not to accept any particular mitigating circumstance presented to them by the defense during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial. This study examines whether this shift in procedure may have altered the role of mitigation in predicting capital sentencing outcomes by comparing death sentencing predictors before and after the McKoy decision with data from an extensive sample of capital cases in North Carolina tried between 1977 and 2002. The results indicate that (1) both the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances accepted by capital jurors had statistically significant and substantial effects on capital sentencing outcomes both before and after the McKoy decision; (2) the number of mitigating circumstances presented to and accepted by capital juries in North Carolina doubled during the post‐McKoy period; and (3) the influence of mitigating circumstance on capital sentencing outcomes was attenuated in the post‐McKoy period. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Military Veterans, Culpability, and Blame

Recently in Porter v. McCollum, the United States Supreme Court, citing “a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service,” held that a defense lawyer’s failure to present his client’s military service record as mitigating evidence during his sentencing for two murders amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The purpose of this Article is to assess, from the just deserts perspective, the grounds to believe that veterans who commit crimes are to be blamed less by the State than offenders without such backgrounds. Two rationales for a differential treatment of military veterans who commit crimes are typically set forth. The Porter Court raised each, stating that we should treat veterans differently “in recognition of” both “their service” and “the intense stress and mental and emotional toll” of combat. The former factor suggests there being a “social contributions” or gratitude-based discount, whereas the latter factor points towards a “mental disturbance” discount. This Article analyzes the two accounts and raises some doubts about both. This Article then argues that a military veteran who commits a crime should not be blamed to the full extent of his blameworthiness, not necessarily because of his mental capacity nor because of his social contribution, but because the State’s hand in producing his criminality undermines its standing to blame him.     

A Comparison of Retained and Appointed Counsel in Cases of Capital Murder

We examined the role of counsel as a source of arbitrary and capricious sentencing in cases of capital murder. The method is a reanalysis of the data of Baldus, Woodworth, & Pulaski (1990) on 606 cases of capital murder in Georgia in the 1970s. Controlling for variables describing the character of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime, a death sentence was more likely when defense counsel was appointed rather than retained privately. This was a consequence primarily of the prosecutor's decision to seek a death sentence rather than jury bias in sentencing. Our data support the conclusion that sentencing under the Georgia statute was in the 1970s, and is today to some degree, arbitrary and capricious.     

论量刑事实的证明标准

《刑事诉讼法》、《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的解释》和《关于办理死刑案件审查判断证据若干问题的规定》对量刑事实的证明标准的规定与学术观点之间存在一定分歧.为了防止立法技术上的因素使被告人陷于不利境地以及在界定定罪事实与量刑事实上的无休止争论,罪重事实应当适用与定罪事实相同的证明标准.量刑事实的举证责任分配以及控辩双方的举证能力差异决定着罪轻事实的证明标准应当低于定罪事实的证明标准.其中,从轻处罚的事实可以适用优势证据标准;减轻处罚的事实和免除处罚的事实应当适用明晰可信标准.     

An Examination of Defendant Sex Disparity in Capital Sentencing: A Propensity Score Matching Approach

Although much prior work has examined the influence of extralegal factors on jury capital sentencing decision-making, the influence of defendant sex has been largely omitted from previous investigations. Using propensity score matching methods, the current study analyzes data from the North Carolina Capital Sentencing Project to examine whether “sex matters” in capital sentencing. Findings demonstrated that prior to matching there was a significant difference in the likelihood of receiving the death penalty for female and male defendant cases; however, after matching cases on an array of legal and extralegal case characteristics, these differences were no longer significant. Further results revealed that male defendants’ cases included different aggravating and mitigating factors than female defendants’ cases and that female defendants had limited “paths” to capital trials. Findings suggest that any apparent sex effects that are observed in capital sentencing stem from real differences in the case characteristics found in female and male defendants’ cases rather than any direct effects of defendant sex on jury decision-making. Study limitations and implications for death penalty research are also discussed.     

A Review of Sex Disparities in the “Key Players” of the Capital Punishment Process: From Defendants to Jurors

Extralegal disparities between defendants sentenced to the death penalty and those who receive life without parole disturb even the most resolute advocates of capital punishment. Extensive bodies of research document extralegal factors influencing death penalty outcomes. Although studies largely focus on race and ethnicity, a growing body of research considers the impact of sex on the capital sentencing process. This paper reviews the extant research on the impact of the sex of the victim, defendant, attorney, juror, and judge on capital case outcomes. Women’s scarcity on death row and a previously documented “female victim effect” condemning male defendants who kill female victims, particularly for those committing crimes of sexual degradation, suggests that death row policies and their implementation chivalrously protect female defendants and victims. Conversely, a limited amount of research documents a “domestic discount,” or greater leniency for death-eligible crimes commonly victimizing women than for those victimizing acquaintances or strangers. Although opinion polls document greater support for the death penalty among men than women, juror sex inconsistently predicts sentencing outcomes in the literature. Minimal research on judge and attorney sex finds female judges more liberal in death penalty sentencing than male judges and inconclusive relationships between attorney sex and adjudication. Findings in the research on sex and death penalty outcomes support the existence of a “sex effect” and inform recommendations for future research to expand the body of literature.     

死刑案件实行三审终审制改造的构想

死刑复核程序有一定价值,但存在诸多弊端。即便最高法院收回死刑核准权,但死刑复核程序自身的弊端依然存在。应废除死刑复核程序,实行死刑案件二审强制上诉制度,增加三审并原则上设定为法律审。实行合议庭法官一致(或绝对多数)同意时才能对被告人判处死刑的原则,并应对死刑案件合议庭的组成方式进行改革。死刑案件还应充分发挥辩护律师的作用,实现被告人辩护权的最大化。     

在押被告与律师会见通信权的保障与限制——以欧洲人权法院裁判为借镜

在押被告能够接触辩护律师并在不受监察的情况下进行会见通信,是达成有效辩护的关键,但基于监所秩序管理与刑事程序保全,又不能一概排除限制会见通信的措施。这里涉及不同目的之间的冲突和调和,在此欧洲人权法院裁判关于会见通信保障与限制的解释与运作值得参考。我国《刑事诉讼法》应确立自由交流权的立法基点,在押被告与辩护律师之间,应以会见通信不受监察为原则,限制会见通信为例外。监察措施应贯彻必要性和比例性原则,构建防止监察手段滥用的程序担保措施。     

From impartial expert to adversary in the wake of Ake

In deciding Ake v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that, when defendants demonstrate that their sanity is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the State must assure them access to a competent psychiatrist who will not only examine them but also render other assistance to the defense. There have been 28 known subsequent decisions in which appellate courts have ruled on the validity of Ake-based claims; in only four did the defendant prevail. The case nonetheless raises issues relative to the proper role of the psychiatric expert. The Supreme Court's decisions, although not introducing a new ethical topic, appear to be favoring a more adversarial posture, at least within certain parameters. I suggest that impartiality, independence, and advocacy need not be mutually exclusive concepts and that some of our traditional beliefs about what part we should play in criminal law may have to be modified and expanded.     

Kids are Different: The United States Supreme Court Reforms Youth Sentencing Practices for Youth Prosecuted in the Criminal Justice System

In a series of decisions issued between 2005‐2016, the United States Supreme Court relied on emerging scientific research detailing the developmental differences between children and adults to revamp its juvenile sentencing jurisprudence under the Eighth Amendment. The research established that youth’s developmental immaturity reduces their culpability for their criminal conduct, while also demonstrating their heightened capacity for change and rehabilitation. The Court focused on the most extreme sentences for youth, banning the imposition of the death penalty on youth under the age of eighteen in Roper v. Simmons (2005), and severely limiting the availability of life without parole sentences even for youth convicted of murder, in Graham v Florida (2010) and Miller v Alabama (2012). This article traces the Court’s evolution in reviewing sentences for youth in our justice system, and considers how the Court’s reasoning in these cases may influence further reforms in the justice system’s treatment of youth looking ahead.     

Plea decision-making: the influence of attorney expertise,trustworthiness, and recommendation

ABSTRACT

Attorney recommendations influence defendant plea decisions; and the degree of influence likely rests on the perceived trustworthiness and level of expertise of the attorney (factors of source credibility). We explored attorney source credibility factors and how these characteristics influence defendants’ plea decision-making. MTurk participants read a hypothetical plea scenario and were asked to imagine themselves as the defendant in a DWI/DUI case making a plea decision; in the scenario, we manipulated the defense attorney’s level of trustworthiness, expertise, and plea recommendation. There was a significant interaction between attorney recommendation and trustworthiness on defendants’ plea decisions; participants who were advised to accept the guilty plea were more likely to plead guilty when the attorney was high in trustworthiness compared to low in trustworthiness. Attorney trustworthiness did not affect plea decisions for defendants advised to reject the guilty plea. Importantly, attorney trustworthiness affected defendants’ decision to follow the attorney’s recommendation and ultimate plea decision (regardless of expertise), and attorney expertise affected defendants’ confidence in their decision (regardless of trustworthiness). Results suggest individual-level characteristics of defense attorneys affect the influence of the attorney and their recommendation, and ultimately defendants’ plea decision-making.     

Meeting the Mandates of Gault: Automatic Appointment of Counsel in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled that children facing delinquency charges have a constitutional right to defense counsel. Despite that mandate, state assessments of juvenile defense systems have consistently found high rates of waiver of counsel. Children are facing harsh punishments with potentially lifelong consequences without the benefit of a trained defense attorney at their side. Given the severity of the consequences of juvenile court involvement and society’s understanding of the developmental science behind adolescence, this article argues that to meet constitutional requirements, juvenile courts must automatically appoint defense counsel for all children facing delinquency charges.     

Prosecutorial discretion in seeking death: An analysis of racial disparity in the pretrial stages of case processing in a midwestern county

In the 1987 case of McCleskey v. Kemp, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to foreclose the possibility of challenging racial bias in capital sentencing by using statistically based claims of discrimination. McCleskey, however, does not prevent a challenge to decisions made by particular individuals during the capital punishment process. In this study we examined pretrial decisions made by, or under the direction of, one prosecutor to determine whether those decisions had been influenced by race. We found that homicide cases involving black defendants and white victims fared worse than other racial combinations in all of the pretrial decisions made: They were more likely to result in first-degree murder charges, to be served notice of aggravating circumstances, and to proceed to capital trial.     

Ethnic origin of the victim as an aggravating factor in sentencing sexual offenders

This article examines R v Jamal Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir, a Court of Appeal case where leave to appeal against a seven-year custodial sentence for sexual offences against children was refused. The appellant argued that his sentence length was excessive because the judge viewed the female victims’ ethnic and religious origin as an aggravating factor. In light of a number of charities’ condemning the judgment, this article evaluates whether the Court of Appeal made the correct decision, particularly in the wider context of sentencing principles. It also considers whether causing shame to a victim and her family can be regarded as an aggravating factor when sentencing sexual offences, and discusses the circumstances where the victim’s ethnic origin should be taken into account.     

PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE RETRIBUTIVE DOCTRINE OF PUNISHMENT*

In Gregg v. Georgia in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that public opinion, including the public's presumed desire for retribution, can be a legitimate basis for penal policy. Subsequently, the retributive doctrine has guided sentencing reform across the nation. But variation among the public in support for retribution as the goal of punishment and the effects of religion in shaping public sentiments about punishment have received little attention from researchers. Drawing from recent work on attribution theory and religion, this paper proposes and reports evidence that public support for the retributive doctrine is closely linked to affiliation with fundamentalist Protestant denominations and fundamentalist religious beliefs. The normative implications of such a connection are addressed.     

“Our People in General Have a High Degree of Freedom”

This article considers the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business et al v Sebelius, which questioned the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature healthcare reforms of 2009, which have become colloquially known as ‘Obamacare’. Although the Supreme Court upheld the Act as constitutional, this article contends that the Supreme Court’s reasoning can be read as another battle in the long-standing debate in American politics over the correct size and limits of the Federal Government. In upholding the healthcare reforms as a tax, rather than under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court has endorsed a view of limited government in line with the principles of classical liberalism. This has the potential to greatly restrict the scope of the Federal Government to pursue large scale expansive social welfare programmes in the future.