home

Why the Feds Fail in NY Death Penalty Cases

The New York Times examines why the feds have been so unsuccessful in getting death penalty convictions in New York State.

In the 20 years since the federal death penalty statute was revived, no federal juries have been more reluctant to sentence federal defendants to death than those in New York.

The Justice Department's losing record in New York: 19 to 1, since 1988. Nationally, the feds win about 1/3 of their capital cases.

One reason is the reluctance of jurors to impose it. Another is the quality of the New York capital defenders. A third is the sometimes unsympathetic victims.

But there's more. The Judges are weighing in, on everything from the exorbitant expense to the arbitrariness and disparity in the system. More...

Federal judges in New York have gone so far as to call some death penalty cases a waste of time and money. Last week, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of Federal District Court in Brooklyn told prosecutors that their chances of obtaining a death sentence against a drug dealer charged with dismembering two rivals were “virtually nil” and issued an order in which he said he was waiting for the Justice Department to reconsider whether to pursue an execution.

There's also Judge Jed Rakoff's excellent 2002 opinion finding the death penalty unconstitutional, which later was overturned on appeal but is still well read:

[He]cited the growing number of exonerations of death row inmates and ruled that the death penalty was “tantamount to foreseeable, state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings.”

Recently, the Times reports, other judges are taking similar negative views of federal death cases:

Last March, Judge Frederic Block wrote an Op-Ed piece for The New York Times in which he questioned the “enormous costs and burdens to the judicial system” caused by the death penalty. In 2003, his colleague Judge John Gleeson wrote an article for The Virginia Law Review in which he called Mr. Ashcroft’s decision to force prosecutors to seek the death penalty against their own recommendations “a bad idea.”

Another Brooklyn jurist, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, has by his own count twice asked the Justice Department to reconsider the death penalty in cases he has overseen.

Only three people have been executed after federal convictions in the U.S. since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, in 2001; Juan Raul Garza, a drug dealer who killed three other drug traffickers in Texas, in 2001; and Louis Jones Jr., who kidnapped, raped and killed a 19-year-old female soldier in Texas in 2003.

Hopefully, the federal death penalty will become a rarely used relic. If so, I doubt it will be because legislators take it off the books. Or because prosecutors decide not to use it.

Rather, it seems, it will be because juries learn of its disparate application and fallibility and come to the realization that life in prison without the possibility of parole is punishment enough; because judges become more comfortable in taking an active role in preventing the overburdening of the system; and because better trained defenders specializing in death-defense has become the norm.

More on Ashcroft's attempt to override his prosecutors here and here. On his failure in Puerto Rico here. On Vermont federal Judge William Sessions ruling the death penalty unconstitutional here. On a federal judge in Mass. who criticized Ashcroft for bringing death cases in states without a death penalty here.

< Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not, Part 1 Zillion | NYTimes: Pass the Second Chance Act >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I hope it is taken off the books... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Oje on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:35:51 AM EST
    If the effort to end the federal death penalty stops short of repeal, isn't also likely that the sectional disparities will become more accentuated? The people of New York, and other places like it, will regard themselves as oh-so-civilized and righteous in their continued refusal to apply the death penalty. While the people of Oklahoma and Texas, and other places like them, will pride themselves as oh-so-resolute and righteous in their application of punishment under the letter of the law.

    Mixed feelings about the death penalty (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:48:50 AM EST
    I am basically completely against it, but when I read articles about people molesting or killing children...  They can be glad I am not on the jury.

    Time to end capital punishment (none / 0) (#3)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:33:22 AM EST
    I am completely against it...Thus I will never be on a jury in a capital case. A quirk of "the system" in capital cases is, you aren't judged by a jury of your peers unless your peers approve of sentencing you to death.

    I live in Buffalo, NY (none / 0) (#4)
    by dem08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:01:38 AM EST
    and we have had TWO horrendous crimes in which the WRONG person was put in prison: one a multiple rapist who murdered his victims and one a teenage girl who was murdered in her bedroom.

    The innocent man served over 20 years in "The Bike Path Rapists" case and the mother served over a decade for her daughter's death.

    Maybe all states have Judges who know that there is seldom 100% certainty, and since New York had an anti-death penalty spokesman and stalwart in Governor Mario Cuoumo (who lost to Pataki over that issue and others), New York has a built-in tradition of caution.

    I admire Jeralyn for taking head-on America's knee-jerk obsession with assuming a defendant must be guilty or why else were they arrested.

    Many of us salute you in your struggle and Good Fight.

    Buffalo is a mess (none / 0) (#6)
    by Nasarius on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:46:43 AM EST
    The violent crime rate here is crazy, and our police force seems to be some combination of incompetent and corrupt -- see the recent thing with Dennis Delano. I have to laugh when I see the lily-white suburb of Amherst is rated one of the safest places in America. Sure, just don't step outside.

    Plus, I just spent two hours digging my car out of the snow. Fortunately, I'm getting out of here soon ;-)

    Parent

    jerry, i agree. (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:09:34 AM EST
    as a rule, i'm against state sanctioned, cold-blooded murder (that is, after all, what executions are.), with that one exception; i'd have little difficulty sentencing a child molester to death. i'd happily pull the switch/push the button/open the trap door. and i wouldn't request anonymity to do it.

    you realize that makes us hypocrites, don't you? myself, i can live with that.

    as for the rest, given the enormous cost involved and the very real possibility the wrong person is convicted, life without parole is the prudent way to go.


    I oppose capital punishment, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:08:11 AM EST
      but not because I entirely reject the opinion that some crimes and some offenders present circumstances where imposition of the ultimate punishment might reasonably be considered warranted. No matter the nature of the crime or the criminal, I'm ambivalent about execution  still, but the arguments in favor of the death penalty in some cases do have some resonance.

      However, when we move beyond abstract moral questions to the real world practical facts, I am compelled to support a ban of capital punishment. In a system where it is known we have an "error rate" (albeit low, but a low rate applied to huge numbers still results in numerous occurences) the risk of executing innocent people, in my mind outweighs all other considerations.

      Beyond that, even if we had a "perfect system" in terms of convicting only the guilty, we still have the reality that not all truly guilty people are treated the same. Where race, class, public and official  sentiment, disparate resources and other factors apart from "moral guilt" weigh heavily in the determination of punishment, the use of capital punishment is largely premised on considerations other than relative moral culpability.

    The one NY case in which the Feds got death (none / 0) (#8)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:54:13 AM EST
    demonstrates the way in which the death penalty distorts the criminal justice system.  Ronell Wilson was arrested for the shootings of two undercover New York Police Officers.  All of his codefendants cut deals immediately, leaving him the last man standing  (accused of being the shooter though hardly the mastermind.  He was charged in state court with first degree murder.  But then the New York Court of Appeals decided People v. Lavalle which declared the State's death penalty statute unconstitutional.  

    The Richmond County District Attorney (Richmond County is Staten Island in NYC) went to the USA for the Eastern District and shopped the case to them.  This would never have been a federal case absent these events.  Does that make sense?

    This kind of distortion of the process is common in capital cases.  DAs and police feel enormous pressure to convict which is why prosecutorial and police misconduct are so common in these cases.  Perhaps the worst distortion stems from the death qualification process in which all jurors who are opposed to the death penalty are disqualified from serving.  Research has shown that this creates juries not only more likely to impose the death penalty, but to convict in the first place.

    The whole system is a catastrophe, and an expensive one.

    To those who want to just kill the child molesters let me say a couple of things.  I agree with the sentiment, but no the conclusion.  We know that these are among the least deterable crimes, so the death penalty is pure vengeance.  But everyone has some crime that they feel particularly vengeful about.  Unfortunately we have good research to show that white people, who are in the majority in virtually every jury that delivers a death sentence, feel particularly vengeful about black people who kill white people.

    This is where Dukakis went wrong when asked about the death penalty for someone who raped his wife.  My answer would be, I'd want to kill the guy, but I should not be allowed to.  That is the difference between civilization and barbarism.

    From a purely guilty/innocent pov, (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    do we have evidence that with "modern" death penalty trials (iow, recent trials with modern forensics, DAN, etc.) and after all the appeals, etc., we are now convicting innocents?

    There is a pretty good argument for (none / 0) (#10)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:00:03 PM EST
    Ruben Cantu

    The problem is that there are not enough resources to fully investigate the cases of the living people on death row.    Look at California where something like 200 of the 650 inmates on death row are waiting to get a lawyer for their appeal.  Who is going to reinvestigate the cases of those already executed?

    Parent

    No physical evidence. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:10:36 PM EST
    Seems like there ought to be a requirement for at least some physical evidence in a DP case.

    Parent