Capital Punishment - Owen

Front 1

Ford v. Wainwright 1986

2 prong test for "competency to stand trial"

Back 1

1) rational + factual understanding of charges

2) able to assist + communicate w/ attorney

Front 2

Proportionality

2 prong test

Back 2

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?

Front 3

What are factors used to determine whether a D is 'mentally retarded'?

Back 3

1) significantly sub-average intelligence

2) deficits in adaptive functioning

3) onset before age 18 - developmental period

Front 4

McGautha v. CA 1971

HOLDING

Back 4

1) bifurcated trial

2) standards for jury

Front 5

Furman v. GA 1972

HOLDING

Back 5

1) DP should not be 'capricious and arbitrary'

Front 6

Gregg v. GA 1976

HOLDING

Back 6

Introduction of 'agg and mitigating' factors jury MUST consider

'proportionality review'

Front 7

Lockett v. Ohio 1978

HOLDING

*mitigating factors

Back 7

violation of 8th/14th to narrowly limit jury's discretion to consider mitigating factors

Front 8

History of TX DP Statute

Pre-1991; 2 Q's

Back 8

1) was murder committed deliberately?

2) is D a continuing future threat to society?

If yes, then DP

Front 9

History of TX DP Statute

Post-1991

Back 9

1) is D a continuing future threat to society?

2) adds mitigation requirement

Front 10

Penry v. Lynaugh 1989

*execution of mentally retarded

Back 10

No violation of 8th amendment

Front 11

What are juries NOT allowed to consider as mitigating evidence?

Back 11

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)

Front 12

Voir Dire considerations; types of jury disqualifications

Back 12

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)

Front 13

Payne v. Tenn 1991

*victim impact evidence

Back 13

8th amendment does not bar VIE per se

Front 14

Types of 'objective evidence' the court may consider

Q: mentally retarded DP?
rape of adult woman DP?

Back 14

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

Front 15

Thompson 1988

HOLDING

*age of D

Back 15

15 y/o too young to be eligible for DP

Front 16

Strickland v. Washington 1984

*test for competency of counsel

Back 16

1) deficient performance
(subjective; what is reasonable for other atty's in field)

2) prejudice
(reasonable probability of another outcome)

Front 17

McClesky v. Kemp

*statistical study of race

Back 17

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'

Front 18

Considerations on presentation of Innocence evidence at post-conviction

Back 18

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?

Front 19

3 types of Clemency

Back 19

1) pardons - D free from guilt; full bundle of rights

2) reprieves - postponements

3) commutations - reductions in sentence

Front 20

Due Process limitations on Clemency

Woodard v. Ohio Parole Board

Back 20

Minimal limitations (4)

cannot just flip a coin or refuse petition for clemency