FEATURED POST

America Is Stuck With the Death Penalty for (At Least) a Generation

Image
With Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement, the national fight to abolish capital punishment will have to go local.
When the Supreme Court revived capital punishment in 1976, just four years after de facto abolishing it, the justices effectively took ownership of the American death penalty and all its outcomes. They have spent the decades since then setting its legal and constitutional parameters, supervising its general implementation, sanctioning its use in specific cases, and brushing aside concerns about its many flaws.
That unusual role in the American legal system is about to change. With Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement from the court this summer, the Supreme Court will lose a heterodox jurist whose willingness to cross ideological divides made him the deciding factor in many legal battles. In cases involving the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, his judgment often meant the difference between life and death for hundreds of death-row pr…

Texas death penalty juror hopes to change law as execution looms

Paul Storey
Paul Storey
As Paul Storey's execution looms, one juror is asking the Texas Legislature to clarify the jury instructions in death penalty cases, claiming he didn't know he alone could have stopped the sentence.

When Sven Berger looked around at the other jurors in the deliberation room during a 2008 capital murder trial, he knew that the majority wanted the death penalty. He also knew he didn’t.

But he voted for it anyway. It's a decision he still regrets, and one he says he wouldn't have made if the law had been clearly explained in that Tarrant County courtroom.

He'd sat in the courtroom and listened to how Paul Storey, the 22-year-old defendant in an ill-fitting suit, and another man had robbed a miniature golf park near Fort Worth and fatally shot the assistant manager, 28-year-old Jonas Cherry. Berger knew Storey was guilty, he said in a recent Texas Tribune interview, but in his gut, he didn't believe the man would be a future danger to society, a requirement in issuing the death penalty in Texas.

What Berger didn’t realize — in part because of the language in the jury instructions — was that his vote alone could have blocked the jury from handing down a death sentence and given Storey life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Thinking that he'd have to convince most of his fellow jurors to spare Storey from execution, he didn’t fight as the jury deliberated, Berger said. When the life-or-death questions went around the table, he answered like everyone else.

Now, with Storey’s execution set for April 12, Berger and two state lawmakers are hoping to change jury instructions in death penalty cases.

“The judge instructed us that any vote that would impose a life sentence would require a consensus of 10 or more jurors,” Berger wrote in a letter to the Senate Criminal Justice Committee last week. “With the vast majority of the other jurors in the room … voicing their vote for death, I seriously doubted I could persuade one, let alone nine other jurors, to vote to incarcerate Mr. Storey for the remainder of his life, and I switched my vote.”

To hand down a death sentence in Texas, the jury's decision must be unanimous. If even one juror disagrees, the trial automatically results in a sentence of life without parole. But the jury instructions don’t say that, and, under state law, no judge or lawyer can tell jurors that either.

Instead, deliberations in a trial's sentencing phase (after the jury has issued a conviction) focus not on death versus life, but on three specific questions the jury must answer: is the defendant likely to be a future danger to society? If the defendant wasn’t the actual killer, did he or she intend to kill someone or anticipate death? And, if the answer is yes to the previous questions, is there any mitigating evidence — like an intellectual disability — that the jury thinks warrants the lesser sentence of life without parole?

To issue a death sentence, the jury must unanimously answer “yes” to the first two questions and “no” to the last question. But, the instructions state, to answer “no” to the first two questions or “yes” to the last, ten or more jurors must agree.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
What those complicated instructions don't say is that a single juror can deadlock the jury on any of the three questions, eliminating death as an option and triggering an automatic life without parole sentence.

Berger didn’t get the distinction.

“I’m appalled that Texas’ capital jury instructions misled jurors about the implications of their vote, and find it unconscionable that men and women like me, with the power of life and death, are told that they must act only as a single group, and that their individual voice doesn’t matter,” Berger wrote in his letter.

➤ Click here to read the full article

Source: Texas Tribune, Jollie McCullough, March 28, 2017

⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.


Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!

Most Viewed (Last 7 Days)

Texas: With a man's execution days away, his victims react with fury or forgiveness

Texas executes Christopher Young

Ohio executes Robert Van Hook

Saudi Arabia executes seven people in one day

Execution date pushed back for Texas 7 escapee after paperwork error on death warrant

Ohio Governor commutes one sentence, delays another

Ex-Aum member Yoshihiro Inoue’s last words: ‘I didn’t expect things to turn out this way’

Iran: Man executed in Mashhad; billionaire to hang over embezzlement charges

20 Minutes to Death: Record of the Last Execution in France

Oklahoma: Death row inmate’s legal team hopes DNA testing on key piece of evidence will exonerate him before execution