Capital Punishment Appeals: A Constitutional Right?

The death penalty appeals process in the United States involves state and federal courts and direct and post-conviction review of a death sentence. The U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extends this prohibition to the states. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not inherently unconstitutional, but certain procedural aspects must be considered when determining if a particular punishment is cruel or unusual. This includes evaluating evolving standards of decency and ensuring proportionality in sentencing. The appeals process allows defendants to raise issues such as ineffective assistance of counsel, juror misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and Brady violations. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter for defendants appealing their death sentences.

Explore related products

Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case

$11.97 $17.99

A Descending Spiral: Exposing the Death Penalty in 12 Essays

$17.81 $25.99

Arbitrary Death: A Prosecutor's Perspective on the Death Penalty

$9.99 $12.95

The Death Penalty: America's Experience with Capital Punishment

$90

The History of the Death Penalty in Colorado (Timberline Books)

$44.21 $47

Impact of Federal Habeas Corpus Limitations on Death Penalty Appeals

$17.75

The burden of proof in habeas proceedings

In the United States, the death penalty appeals process involves state and federal courts and direct and post-conviction review of a death sentence. In Connecticut, defendants convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death have three successive procedures to challenge constitutional defects in their conviction or sentence.

Firstly, they may raise the claim on direct appeal; second, they may petition for state habeas proceedings; and third, at the conclusion of the state proceedings, they may petition for federal habeas corpus. The burden of proof in habeas proceedings falls on the defendant, who must prove the claim alleged. Habeas petitions generally cannot raise issues already raised and decided on appeal.

If a defendant's state habeas claim is granted, the case is remanded for either a new trial or a new penalty phase hearing, depending on the error found by the habeas court. If the defendant is again sentenced to death, the appeal and habeas procedure may start over again. If the federal habeas claim is granted, the court may order a new trial or a new sentencing hearing, depending on the error found.

The 1996 federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) established a streamlined procedure for habeas corpus claims brought in federal courts. It limits federal habeas proceedings and shortens the time period involved. AEDPA also offers states expeditious habeas procedures in capital cases, such as establishing a 180-day statute of limitations for filing federal habeas petitions after state proceedings have ended.

State and federal courts' roles

The death penalty appeals process involves both state and federal courts, with each playing distinct roles in reviewing and adjudicating capital punishment cases.

State Courts

State courts are the initial forum for death penalty appeals, with defendants typically raising their claims through a direct appeal process. This stage is limited to addressing issues arising from the trial, and the case is reviewed by a panel of judges who can affirm or reverse the conviction and sentence. If the conviction is upheld, the defendant can proceed to the next stage of the appellate process, known as state post-conviction review. Here, the defendant can raise additional issues outside the trial record, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, juror misconduct, or newly discovered evidence. The petitions are filed with the original trial judge and then progressed through the state court system, ultimately reaching the state's highest court.

Federal Courts

Federal courts come into play at the final stage of the appeals process, known as federal habeas corpus. This stage is reserved for federal issues that were raised during the state court appeals. Defendants can petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the discretion to review federal constitutional questions. The Supreme Court's role is crucial as it sets precedents and interprets the Constitution, including the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court's decisions, such as Furman v. Georgia, have shaped the application of the death penalty by addressing issues like arbitrary sentencing and disproportionate impact on marginalized communities.

Supreme Court reviews

The U.S. Supreme Court is the final resort for defendants appealing their death sentences. However, the Court only reviews a handful of death penalty cases annually. The Supreme Court does not require that each procedural reform be included in new death penalty statutes.

In the late 1960s, the Supreme Court began "fine-tuning" the administration of the death penalty. The Court heard two cases in 1968 concerning the discretion afforded to the prosecutor and jury in capital cases. In U.S. v. Jackson (390 U.S. 570), the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional to require a jury recommendation for imposing the death penalty, as it incentivised defendants to waive their right to a jury trial. In Witherspoon v. Illinois (391 U.S. 510), the Court ruled that a potential juror's reservations about the death penalty did not disqualify them from serving on a death penalty case jury.

In Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238), the Supreme Court invalidated existing death penalty laws as they constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. The Court set a standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual if it was too severe for the crime, arbitrary, offensive to society's sense of justice, or less effective than a less severe penalty. The Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia led to the invalidation of existing death penalty laws, as they were deemed to result in disproportionate and discriminatory sentencing.

The Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of arbitrariness in death penalty cases. In Baze v. Rees (553 U.S. 35), the Court held that lethal injection did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Court applied an "objectively intolerable" test to determine if a method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Explore related products

Death Penalty Designs: Maximum Due Process

$59

Justice Denied: Clemency Appeals in Death Penalty Cases

$14.55 $25.95

Machinery of Death: The Reality of America's Death Penalty Regime

$38.92 $51.99

Death Penalty Designs: Maximum Due Process

$9.99

Hope to Win - Prepare to Appeal: and change the law along the way

$24.95

Living on Death Row: The Psychology of Waiting to Die

$28.01 $38.24

Constitutional defects in conviction or sentence

The death penalty appeals process in the US involves state and federal courts and direct and post-conviction review of a death sentence. In Connecticut, defendants convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to death have three successive procedures to challenge constitutional defects in their conviction or sentence.

Firstly, they may raise the claim on direct appeal, limited to issues from the trial. After reviewing the case, the judges can affirm the conviction and sentence, reverse the conviction, or reverse the death sentence.

Secondly, they may petition for state habeas proceedings. In a habeas proceeding, the defendant has the burden to prove the claim alleged. If the state habeas claim is granted, the case is remanded for a new trial or a new penalty phase hearing, depending on the error found.

Thirdly, at the conclusion of the state proceedings, they may petition for federal habeas corpus, which is the final stage of the appeals process. This is limited to federal issues raised on appeal in the state courts.

If the federal habeas claim is granted, the court may order a new trial or a new sentencing hearing, depending on the error found. If the defendant receives a new sentencing hearing and the death penalty is applied, they may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is the last resort for defendants appealing their death sentence, but it only reviews a handful of death penalty cases a year.

The defendant can raise issues such as ineffective assistance of counsel, juror misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and Brady violations (where the state withholds evidence that could help the defense). There are strict timelines that must be followed when filing this appeal, and if these are missed, the defendant's appeals may end.

In addition, there is widespread racial bias in the administration of the death penalty, with 87% of Black exonerees who were sentenced to death being victims of official misconduct, compared to 67% of white exonerees. There is also a lack of adequate legal representation for defendants, with few states providing enough funding for capital defense counsel.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not inherently cruel and unusual and therefore does not violate the Eighth Amendment, specific modes of execution can violate the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause. For example, challenges have been made to the three-drug protocol used in lethal injections, arguing that it causes excessive pain and therefore constitutes torture.

Arbitrariness of the death penalty

The arbitrariness of the death penalty has been a long-standing issue in the United States. The Death Penalty Information Center's 2024 report, "Lethal Election: How the U.S. Electoral Process Increases the Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty", highlights the intersection of politics and the death penalty, revealing geographic differences in its usage. Less than 2% of known murderers are sentenced to death, and the likelihood of a death sentence appears to be influenced by factors such as the race of the victim and the county where the crime occurred, rather than the severity of the offense. This is despite the establishment of constitutional guidelines in 1976 to prevent arbitrariness, following the Supreme Court's striking down of all death penalty laws in 1972 due to their arbitrary application.

The death penalty is typically pursued in only a handful of counties within a state, and fewer than 2% of counties in the U.S. account for over half of the nation's death-row population. This results in a system where arbitrary factors, rather than legitimate ones like the nature of the crime or the date of the sentence, determine whether an individual is executed. Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 82% of all executions have occurred in the South, indicating geographic arbitrariness.

The arbitrariness of the death penalty is further exacerbated by the quality of legal representation. Almost all death row inmates cannot afford private attorneys, and court-appointed lawyers are often inexperienced, overworked, and underpaid. In some extreme cases, they have been reported to sleep through parts of trials or appear under the influence of substances. This inequality in legal representation results in an unfair and inconsistent application of the death penalty.

Additionally, there are concerns about racial bias in the application of the death penalty. Prosecutors are more likely to seek capital punishment when the victim is white, compared to when the victim is African-American or from another racial or ethnic background. This bias was evident in the case of Carey Grayson, who was sentenced to execution in Alabama for his involvement in a murder in 1994. Despite acknowledging that Mr. Grayson was not the most culpable individual in the group, he was the only one of the four teenagers to receive a death sentence.

The issues of geographic arbitrariness, racial bias, and the influence of irrelevant factors such as race, poverty, and geography, persist despite efforts to establish guidelines and procedural rules. These factors contribute to a death penalty system that lacks fairness and reasonable consistency, as noted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in 1994.

Frequently asked questions