August 29, 2009
Interesting information about LWOP instructions in capital cases
Thanks to this new item at the Death Penalty Information Center, everyone can check out how "states apply a variety of conditions and use differing instructions to inform" a capital jury about life without parole as a sentencing alternative. Here is the full posting from DPIC:
New Resources: State Instructions for Juries Regarding Life Without Parole Sentences in Capital Cases
In all states that use the death penalty, there are provisions for sentencing inmates to the alternative sentence of life without parole (LWOP). Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Simmons v. South Carolina (1994), some states with LWOP did not inform the jury of this alternative even when so requested by the defense. Today, states apply a variety of conditions and use differing instructions to inform the jury about this alternative sentence. Opinion polls and surveys of capital jurors have shown how important this alternative is in death penalty cases. Thanks to the research of Emma Reynolds of Drexel Law School and Intern at the Philadelphia Federal Defender, Capital Habeas Unit, we are able to offer a summary of how states handle this key issue. Her paper, "Survey of Life Without Parole Instructions in Death Penalty States," provides the relevant statute and information about jury instructions in each death penalty state. As with any legal research, it would be important to research any changes in the law before using this information (e.g., New Mexico has now abolished the death penalty and replaced the sentence with LWOP).
August 29, 2009 at 09:37 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Interesting information about LWOP instructions in capital cases:
Was Simmons v. South Carolina controversial? I ask because Scalia's dissent ends with "I dissent" rather than "I respectfully dissent."
Posted by: . | Aug 29, 2009 10:32:49 AM