Support for the death penalty falls to 60 percent

Sixty percent of Americans favor capital punishment for convicted murderers, the lowest percentage since 1972, according to a Gallup poll released this week reported Reuters.

Gallop randomly sampled 1,028 people by telephone in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia from October 3 to 6. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points, Gallup said.

At its peak in the mid-1990s, capital punishment support was at 80 percent, the polling group said. However, even with declining support nearly two out of three people support the execution of some convicted killers.

Since 2006, six states have repealed death penalty laws outright, including Maryland this year, Gallup said.

Eighty-one percent of Republicans, 47 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of independents support the death penalty, according to the poll.

The largest decrease was found among Democrats, 75 percent of whom supported the death penalty in 1994.

Gallup has been measuring Americans' attitudes about capital punishment since 1936. Fifty-seven percent were in favor of the death penalty in November 1972.

Support for the death penalty increased from 1976, when the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment, and reached a peak in 1994, when Americans named crime as the biggest problem plaguing the nation, the report said.

To read more Click Here

PA Supreme Court Miller v. Alabama not retroactive

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Ian Cunningham, a 4-3 decision finding Miller v. Alabama is not retroactive.  The deciding fourth vote was by Justice Correale F. Stevens who was not on the Court when Cunningham was argued last September. 

 

In Miller v. Alabama the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory life in prison for juveniles convicted of murder. I wrote about the delay and presumed split in Cunningham for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly last month.

 

According to Cunningham, Miller only applies to cases that were pending on appeal at the time Miller was decided, in June, 2012.  The majority opinion written by Justice Thomas G. Saylor found, "Here, applying settled principles of appellate review, nothing in Appellant’s arguments persuades us that Miller’s proscription of the imposition of mandatory life-without-parole sentences upon offenders under the age of eighteen at the time their crimes were committed must be extended to those whose judgments of sentence were final as of the time of Miller’s announcement."

 

Justice Max Baer wrote a dissenting opinion.

Attorneys for Cunningham intend to seek review by the United States Supreme Court.

 

There have been a number of conflicting decision among state and federal circuits with regard to Miller v. Alabama. Last month, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in In re Michael J. Pendleton, No. 12-3617; In re Franklin X. Baines, No. 12-3996; and In re Corey Grant, 13-1455, that three men, two from Pennsylvania and one from New Jersey, sentenced as juveniles to life in prison, will have a chance to argue that Miller is retroactive.

A review of 'stand your ground' and the 'castle doctrine'

The National Conference of State Legislatures, provided a detailed summary of the state of self-defense laws across the country.  Here is a look at the 'stand your ground', the 'castle doctrine' and self-defense.

The common law principle of “castle doctrine” says that individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against an intruder in their home. This principle has been codified and expanded by state legislatures.

In the 1980s, a handful of state laws (nicknamed “make my day” laws) addressed immunity from prosecution in use of deadly force against another who unlawfully and forcibly enters a person’s residence. In 2005, Florida passed a law related to castle doctrine, expanding on that premise with “stand your ground” language related to self defense and duty to retreat.   Florida’s law states “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Laws in at least 22 states allow that there is no duty to retreat an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present.  (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.)  At least nine of those states include language stating one may “stand his or her ground.”  (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.)

Pennsylvania's law, amended in 2011, distinguishes use of deadly force outside one’s home or vehicle.  It provides that in such locations one cannot use deadly force unless he has reasonable belief of imminent death or injury, and either he or she cannot retreat in safety or the attacker displays or uses a lethal weapon.

Self defense laws in at least 22 states (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee West Virginia and Wisconsin) provide civil immunity under certain self defense circumstances.

Statutes in at least six states (Hawaii, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota and Tennessee) assert that civil remedies are unaffected by criminal provisions of self defense law.

With regard to recent legislative proposals, self defense related bills failed in three states in 2013 (Arkansas, Florida and Mississippi, each now adjourned).  A bill in North Carolina (H 976) that would amend aspects of law regarding use of force against an intruder was in committee upon adjournment.  Several measures in New Jersey carried over from 2012 with no 2013 action on those to date.  There were about a dozen bills before state legislatures in 2012, several of which would have amended circumstances for allowed use of force by citizens.  None of those proposals advanced.

Visit the NCSL

Arizona executes man responsible for six murders

The 32nd Execution of 2013

On October 23, 2013, Arizona executed a man convicted of killing six people in Tucson during two armed robberies 17 years ago.

Robert Glen Jones Jr. was given a lethal dose of pentobarbital at 10:35 a.m. MST and was pronounced dead 17 minutes later in the execution chamber at the state prison in Florence.

It took execution technicians about 30 minutes to find usable veins in Jones, a former drug user. At one point, Jones jokingly said: “Shooting dope. Free up one of my hands and I’ll find it for you.”

When the warden asked whether Jones had any last words, he said: “Love and respect my friends and family and hope my friends are never here.”

He never turned his head to look at the witnesses on the other side of a window. Because of limited space in the execution building’s witness room, only 18 of the 22 invited victim relatives were inside.

Jones, 43, and an accomplice were convicted of killing two people at the Moon Smoke Shop on May 30, 1996, and four others at the Firefighters Union Hall social club 14 days later.

The two also were charged with stealing at least $1,300 from cash registers.

They were arrested months later after co-defendant Scott Nordstrom’s brother, who was the getaway driver, told authorities about the crimes.

David Nordstrom cut a deal with prosecutors by testifying against his brother and Jones. He eventually pleaded guilty to armed robbery and served less than four years in prison.

Like Jones, Scott Nordstrom was convicted on six counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. He remains on death row.

Jones was executed about two hours after the U.S. Supreme Court denied motions for a stay of execution and a rehearing of his case.

Federal public defenders had argued that Jones had ineffective counsel at his 1998 trial and that a now-deceased Pima County prosecutor withheld evidence. They still questioned David Nordstrom’s testimony.

Jones didn’t attend his clemency hearing last week or write a letter to the board. He declined interview requests.

It was Arizona’s 36th execution since 1992 and the second this month. On Oct. 9, the state executed 71-year-old Edward Schad, who was convicted of killing a Bisbee man in 1978.

There are 120 people remaining on Arizona’s death row, including two women.

To read more Click Here


 

In Philly 'ex-offenders' no more, 'returning citizens'

The hundreds of thousands of Philadelphians who have served time in prison will no longer be referred to as "ex-offenders" in official city language, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer. Instead, an ordinance will be introduced to call them "returning citizens."

In a statement, Mayor Nutter said that the new term emphasizes reintegration, while " 'ex-offender' carries with it a stigma which may increase the challenges these citizens face."

While the ordinance, to be introduced by Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr., awaits approval, the mayor has already issued an executive order making it city policy to use "returning citizen" on all written material from the city.

The order also renamed the Office of Re-integration Services for Ex-Offenders (RISE) to the Office of Re-integration Services. The acronym, however, will remain the same.

RISE executive director Bill Hart said he estimates the city is home to more than 200,000 "returning citizens," but that an exact number is difficult to pinpoint due to a high recidivism rate.

He hopes the new term will have a "cognitive effect" on those returning from prison.

A more positive label, he said, demonstrates that "you can be successful and make that reintegration in the world."

To read more Click Report

Violent Crime is On the Rise

Violent crime in the United States rose for the second year in a row, indicating that the nation's two-decade decline in crime has ended, reported the USA Today.

The 2012 National Crime Victimization Survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 26 of every 1,000 people experienced violent crime, a 15% increase in how many people reported being victims of rape, robbery or assault. Property crime — burglary, theft and car theft — rose 12%.

"We've plateaued. At this point, I don't think we're going to see any more decreases in crime," criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University told the USA Today. "The challenge will be making sure crime rates don't go back up."

The report follows the FBI's 2012 Uniform Crime Report, released in September, which documented more than 1.2 million violent crimes nationwide — about 1% more than in 2011. For 2011, data from the victims survey also showed an increase in violent crime: up 17% from 2010, the sharpest rise in two decades.

The victimization survey, which collects data from 162,940 people over age 12, found that 26 of every 1,000 people were victims of crime in 2012, up from 23 in 2011. Most of the increase is made up of simple assaults and crimes that were not reported to police. That information is not included in the Uniform Crime Report, which is considered the definitive measure of crime in the United States.

Taken together, the figures indicate a slight shift in direction, said James Lynch, chairman of the University of Maryland's criminology and criminal justice department.

"It's not exactly a crime wave. It's more like a flattening out," Lynch told the USA Today. "I don't see this as terribly alarming, but more as something to pay attention to."

To read more Click Here

GateHouse: The legacy of a landmark decision

Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse News Service
October 25, 2013

More than 50 years ago, Cleveland police officers went to the home of Dollree Mapp looking for a suspect in a criminal investigation.  Mapp refused to let the police in without a warrant.

The police left, and when they returned, they were armed with a “fake” warrant. Chicanery took the place of real police work. Instead of going to a judge to get a warrant, the police drew up their own. After entering to Mapp’s home, police conducted a search and confiscated obscene material resulting in Mapp’s arrest.

So was born the 1961 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Mapp v. Ohio. The court provided a remedy — the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from admission in a criminal prosecution — for unconstitutional police action.

Forty-seven years before Mapp, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence collected in federal prosecutions that violated the Fourth Amendment ban against illegal search and seizures would be excluded from trial. The exclusionary rule, as it became known, was only available to defendants in federal court. Mapp v. Ohio changed that and altered the nation’s jurisprudential landscape. As a result, state prosecutors were also banned from using evidence gained by illegal or improper means.

The rationale behind the exclusionary rule was to deter police misconduct. If police intentionally circumvented their obligation to get a search warrant or if the police were just inept, the penalty would be significant — the inability to use the evidence illegally obtained.

Many Supreme Court observers suggested that the Mapp decision would be detrimental to law enforcement. The courts would be inundated with challenges and the guilty would go free in droves. The exclusionary rule has been the target of a 50-year assault by conservatives that contend the rule is a boondoggle for criminals.

Over the last half-century, the Supreme Court has whittled away at the exclusionary rule. The court has ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police obtained no advantage by their unlawful conduct, if a warrant was improvidently issued by a judge, or if a valid warrant was illegally served.

In 2009, the assault on the exclusionary rule continued. The Supreme Court found that evidence confiscated as the result of an arrest that was the product of an expired warrant was not subject to exclusion. The court found that negligence by one police department in failing to remove a warrant did not contaminate evidence obtained by a different police department that was unaware of the invalid arrest warrant.

In 2011, the 50th anniversary of the Mapp decision, the U.S. Supreme Court further narrowed the exclusionary rule. Police in Alabama arrested Willie Davis. After he was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a police cruiser Davis’ car was searched. The police found a gun. The police were in conformity with the law as it existed at the time the warrantless search of Davis’ car was conducted.

Subsequently, the law changed and Davis sought to have the evidence excluded. The Supreme Court refused to exclude the evidence. Justice Samuel Alito concluded that suppression of evidence as the result of a change in the law, a change that came after a lawful search, “would do nothing to deter police misconduct.”

What the exclusionary rule actually produced was improved police work. Ironically, several years ago Justice Antonin Scalia cited “increasing professionalism of police” as a reason for the exclusionary rule’s obsolescence.

The law enforcement training that grew out of the Mapp decision has enhanced the quality of police investigations and protected the rights of individual citizens. The exclusionary rule’s contribution to the criminal justice system cannot be overstated.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney for Lawrence County, Pa. You can read his blog at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.


 Visit the Column