• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/20

Click to flip

20 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Ford v. Wainwright 1986

2 prong test for "competency to stand trial"
1) rational + factual understanding of charges

2) able to assist + communicate w/ attorney
Proportionality

2 prong test
1) does DP in this context comport with evolving standards of decency?

2) does DP measurably contribute/promote one of permissible purposes we have DP?
What are factors used to determine whether a D is 'mentally retarded'?
1) significantly sub-average intelligence

2) deficits in adaptive functioning

3) onset before age 18 - developmental period
McGautha v. CA 1971

HOLDING
1) bifurcated trial

2) standards for jury
Furman v. GA 1972

HOLDING
1) DP should not be 'capricious and arbitrary'
Gregg v. GA 1976

HOLDING
Introduction of 'agg and mitigating' factors jury MUST consider

'proportionality review'
Lockett v. Ohio 1978

HOLDING

*mitigating factors
violation of 8th/14th to narrowly limit jury's discretion to consider mitigating factors
History of TX DP Statute

Pre-1991; 2 Q's
1) was murder committed deliberately?

2) is D a continuing future threat to society?

If yes, then DP
History of TX DP Statute

Post-1991
1) is D a continuing future threat to society?

2) adds mitigation requirement
Penry v. Lynaugh 1989

*execution of mentally retarded
No violation of 8th amendment
What are juries NOT allowed to consider as mitigating evidence?
1) lingering doubt as to guilt of D

2) opinion of victim's survivors that death is/is not appropriate

3) impact on D's family of execution

4) opposition's views (religious)
Voir Dire considerations; types of jury disqualifications
1) cause - legally insufficient i.e. views re: DP would 'substantially impair' performance as juror

2) preemptory - each side gets to nix 20 (cannot be prejudice)
Payne v. Tenn 1991

*victim impact evidence
8th amendment does not bar VIE per se
Types of 'objective evidence' the court may consider

Q: mentally retarded DP?
rape of adult woman DP?
1) legislative enactments/intent

2) other countries practices
(cons: no 8th amendment, norms of human rights)

3) jury behavior

4) historical practice
polling; academic opinion
Thompson 1988

HOLDING

*age of D
15 y/o too young to be eligible for DP
Strickland v. Washington 1984

*test for competency of counsel
1) deficient performance
(subjective; what is reasonable for other atty's in field)

2) prejudice
(reasonable probability of another outcome)
McClesky v. Kemp

*statistical study of race
1) Baldus Study said white victim cases were more likely to receive DP than black victim cases

2) HELD: must find some specific actor that acted discriminately
3) HELD: absence of procedures are 'arbitrary + capricious'
Considerations on presentation of Innocence evidence at post-conviction
1) what is the process?

2) how innocent to you have to show yourself to be?

3) what are you entitled to?

4) should we give you another trial?
3 types of Clemency
1) pardons - D free from guilt; full bundle of rights

2) reprieves - postponements

3) commutations - reductions in sentence
Due Process limitations on Clemency

Woodard v. Ohio Parole Board
Minimal limitations (4)

cannot just flip a coin or refuse petition for clemency