Hall v. Florida, No. 12-10882
United States Supreme Court |
Hall v. Florida:
United States Supreme Court case involving a murderer who carjacked a pregnant
woman, raped her, and then killed her as she begged for her life and her child’s
life. He had previously assaulted another woman and later murdered one police
officer and shot at another. His lawyers now claim he is retarded and exempt from
execution under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, Atkins v. Virginia,
despite multiple IQ test scores above the usual threshold of 70, ranging as high
as 80. The defendant now claims Florida and other states with laws using a
cut-off of 70 violate the Atkins rule, even though these laws were
cited by the Supreme Court as the consensus needed to establish that rule. CJLF
argues that the Supreme Court should not micromanage the definition of retardation
but rather allow the states reasonable leeway in the borderline cases. If the
rules are made by courts in a slow trickle of decisions, as we have seen with
other sentencing rules. CJLF argues that the Supreme Court should not micromanage
the definition of retardation but rather allow the states reasonable leeway in
the borderline cases. If the rules are made by courts in a slow trickle of
decisions, as we have seen with other sentencing rules. The execution of justly
imposed sentences will be needlessly delayed as these issues are litigated.
|
White v. Woodall, No. 12-794
United States Supreme Court |
White v. Woodall:
U. S. Supreme Court review of a Federal Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals ruling which overturned the death sentence of a Kentucky rapist/murderer.
The case involves the 1997 kidnap, rape, and brutal murder of Sarah Hansen, a
16-year-old cheerleader and honor student, by 22-year-old Robert Keith Woodall.
The evidence included Woodall’s fingerprints, DNA, and his admission of the rape
and kidnapping. Woodall pleaded guilty and did not testify at the sentencing
hearing. The trial judge refused his lawyer’s request to instruct the jury not
to infer anything from his refusal to take the stand. The Kentucky Supreme Court
rejected Woodall’s claim that the judge’s failure to instruct sentencing jury
violated the Fifth Amendment. Last year, the Sixth Circuit disagreed and overturned
the death sentence. At the invitation of the Kentucky Attorney General, CJLF
joined the case to argue that federal law prohibits the federal courts from
overturning a state court decision unless it was contrary to Supreme Court
precedent. Because the Supreme Court has not required an "adverse inference"
instruction at sentencing hearings in these circumstances, the Sixth Circuit
exceeded its authority by sparing this admitted murderer from the penalty he
deserves.
|
People v. Moffett, No. S206771
Connecticut Supreme Court |
People v. Moffett:
California Supreme Court case involving a criminal (a few days short of his 18th
birthday) who was an accessory to the murder of a police officer, during the attempted
escape from an armed robbery. Andrew Moffett was convicted of the murder of Officer
Larry Lasater, which is a death penalty offense for murderers 18 and over. Because
of his age, he received a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of
parole (LWOP). During sentencing, the judge noted that she was exercising her
discretion to give him LWOP rather than life with parole due to the
circumstances of the crime. While Moffett’s case was on appeal, the U. S. Supreme
Court, in Miller v. Alabama, abolished mandatory LWOP for murderers under 18. The
state Court of Appeals then overturned Moffett’s sentence, announcing that it
violated the "spirit" of Miller. When the California Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state’s appeal, CJLF filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of
Officer Lasater’s wife, mother, and brother, arguing to reinstate Moffett’s sentence.
The brief notes that the Miller ruling bars mandatory LWOP for murderers under the
age of 18, while California law is not mandatory and gives judges sentencing
discretion.
|
Brown v. Plata, No. 13A57
United States Supreme Court |
Brown v. Plata:
United States Supreme Court case seeking review of the refusal of a three-judge
district court to reconsider its order imposing an arbitrary cap on the California
prison population. CJLF filed a brief on behalf of all four of California's living
former governors supporting a request for a stay of this order. The Court denied
the stay. Its subsequent disposition of the appeal indicates that the basis was a
question of jurisdiction rather than the merits of the case.
|
Connecticut v. Santiago, No. S.C. 17413
Connecticut Supreme Court |
Connecticut v. Santiago: Connecticut Supreme Court
case in which a murderer seeks to overturn the legislature's decision to leave the
death penalty in place for prior murders, while repealing it for future murders.
Eduardo Santiago was a hired killer who shot Joseph Niwinski in the back of head
while he was asleep. His price for this "job" was a broken snowmobile and payment
of his credit card debts. CJLF argues that the legislature reached a legitimate
compromise in deciding to reduce the maximum penalty for future crimes only.
|
|
