CAPITAL PUNISHMENT LAW
Georgia State University
College of Law
Palmer Singleton
Thursday 2:30 - 5:15
Fall 2000
This course is about the death penalty. We will consider the impact of racism, poverty and shoddy lawyering on capital punishment. First and foremost, however, this course is about the law: what are the rules and procedures which govern who is, and is not, subject to the death penalty; what principles and measures does the law invoke to distinguish death-worthy cases from cases where the sanction of death would itself be unlawful.
A secondary goal of this course is to explore what it is to be an advocate and try to develop some of the tools advocates use. Whether you worship or detest the chair is none of my concern; that you learn to manipulate, recast and control law to secure and advance positions and interests is. A long-range goal of the course is to help students see how to read, learn and think about the law in a way that makes them better advocates.
Materials will include excerpts from appellate and Supreme Court decisions and documents from actual cases. The materials (and the syllabus) may be downloaded from the "Courses on Line" section of the law school's web site located at http://www.law.gsu.edu. Download the syllabus plus all ten section files.
Students are expected to prepare for and contribute to class discussion. Grades will be based primarily on an in-class, closed book, blue book exam. But class participation may raise or lower a student's grade.
While the instructor does not have on campus office hours, he is available via phone (404 688 1202), the internet (psingleton@schr.org) and by appointment at his office, the Southern Center for Human Rights, located only a few blocks from the school at 83 Poplar Street, N.W.
For the first class, please read and be ready to talk about the materials in Section One.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT LAW
Georgia State University
College of Law
Palmer Singleton
Fall 2000
SYLLABUS(1)
(1) Organizational Matters and Introduction to the
Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment
"Stages of a Capital Case"
"Death Row-U.S.A."
House v. Balkcom, 725 F.2d 608 (11th Cir. 1984)
Ex parte Brandley, 781 S.W.2d 886 (Texas Cr.App. 1989)
(2) The Formal Rationality of Death Penalty Law Today: the Guided Discretion Model
A. Aggravating Circumstances and the Calculus of Death
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976)
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976)
B. Mitigation and the Individualization of Capital Punishment
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976)
(3) The Substantive Rationality of the Death Penalty -- Yesterday and Today?
A. The Furman Challenge
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
B. The Legacy of Capital Punishment
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935)
Postscript to Scottsboro Cases
Handout: Carter, SCOTTSBORO: A TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN SOUTH,
pp. 3-35, 43 (LSU Press, revised edition, 1991)
Handout: Goodman, STORIES OF SCOTTSBORO, pp. 118-35 (Pantheon
1994)
Gregg, the Dissents
C. Is It Only History?
Handout: Materials from the Cases of Marcus Wellons, William
Hance and Victor Saldano
(4) The Machinery of Death
A. Eighth Amendment Limitations on Eligibility for the Death Penalty
1. Capital Eligible Offenses
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)
Federal Death Penalty Statute, 18 U.S.C. sec. 3591
2. Culpability and Extended Liability
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987)
3. Youth
Stanford v. Kentucky & Wilkins v. Missouri, 492 U.S.
361 (1989)
4. Mental Illness
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-10-66
5. Mental Retardation
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989)
B. The Constitutional Role and Function of Aggravating Circumstances
1. Separating Out 'the Few Sentenced to Death from the Many
Who Are Not'
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-10-30
Ala. Code sec. 13A-5-49
18 U.S.C. sec. 3592
Middlebrooks v. State, 840 S.W.2d 317 (Tenn. 1992)
Ex parte Gentry, 689 So.2d 916 (Ala. 1996)
Contra Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988)
2. Vagueness Problems
Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988)
Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S. 463 (1992)
Handout: Prosecutor's Closing Argument in State v. Hall,
Superior Court of Barrow County, Georgia, 1990
West v. State, 313 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. 1984)
and Hall v. State, 415 S.E.2d 158 (Ga. 1991)
3. Victim-Impact Evidence
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-10-1.2
Livingston v. State, 444 S.E.2d 748 (Ga. 1994) (Benham, J.,
dissenting)
C. The Constitutional Role and Function of Mitigation: Saving Grace or Bane?
1. The Constitutional Requirement of Consideration of All
Mitigating Circumstances
Woodson, supra
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982)
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986)
Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988)
But see Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 (1993)
Weeks v. Angelone, ___U.S.___, 120 S.Ct. 727 (2000)
2. Statutory Mitigation
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-10-2
Ala. Code sec. 13A-5-51, 13A-5-52
18 U.S.C. sec. 3592
3. Mitigation and the Role of Counsel
Handout: Closing Argument for the Defense at Penalty Phase
in State v. Messer, Superior Court of Polk County, Georgia,
1980
Handout: Proceedings Leading to Death Sentence in State v.
Luke, Circuit Court of Russell County, Alabama, 1982;
Affidavits in Support of Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Luke's
counsel -- Dr. Robert Phillips, M.D., Ph.D; Mavis F. Dudley;
Brenda Washington; Julia Thomas -- Filed in United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, 1990
"Themes"
4. Mitigation and the Legitimacy of the Death Penalty - Two
Views
Penry v. Lynaugh, supra (O'Connor, J.) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting and concurring)
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 673 (1990) (Scalia, J.,
concurring)
(5) Death Is Different - But How Different? Re-Tooling the Formal Rationality of Death
A. The Ultimate Punishment for the Ultimate Offender and
Offense: Proportionality
Furman, supra
Gregg, supra (plurality)
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-10-35
Contra Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984)
Gissendaner v. State, ___S.E.2d___ (Ga. No. 00S0289 (July 5,
2000)
B. Heightened Reliability
Furman, supra
Gregg, supra
Woodson, supra
Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977)
Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980)
Contra Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)
Jacobs v. Scott, 513 U.S. 1067 (1995) (Stevens, J. dissenting
from the denial of certiorari)
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)
C. Minimizing the 'Risk of Arbitrariness'
Gregg, supra
Contra Zant v. Stephens, supra
McCleskey v. Zant, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)
D. The Move from Procedural Safeguards to Shortcuts and
Formalism
Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309. 345 (1915) (Holmes, J.,
dissenting)
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991)
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
28 U.S.C. sec. 2254
(6) Ways In Which Death Is Different
A. The Role of the Jury
Witherspoon, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990)
Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (1984)
Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 (1995)
Clemmons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (1990)
But see Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 (1992)
B. Jury Selection and Death Qualification
Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra
Wainwright v. Witt, 470 U.S. 1039 (1985)
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992)
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986)
Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991)
C. The Role of the Prosecution
Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985)
Contra Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986)
McCleskey, supra
(7) Special Aspects of the Georgia Scheme
A. The Role of Mercy
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-10-2
Barnes v. State, 496 S.E.2d 674 (Ga. 1998)
B. Jury Sentencing and the Unanimity Requirement
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-10-2, 17-10-30 and 17-10-31.1
Sears v. State, 514 S.E.2d 426 (Ga. 1999)
C. Non-Statutory Aggravation and the Scope of the Penalty Phase
1. In Theory: Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1982)
2. In Practice: Other Crimes Evidence
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-10-2
Fair v. State, 268 S.E.2d 316 (1980)
Devier v. Zant, 3 F.3d 1445 (11th Cir. 1993) (Kravitch and
Clark, JJ., concurring);
Williams v. Lynaugh, 484 U.S. 935 (1987) (Marshall and
Brennan, JJ., dissenting from denial of certiorari)
Handout: Selected testimony from sentencing phase, State
v. Thornton, Superior Court of Douglas County, Georgia,1991
D. Mental Retardation as a Bar
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-7-131
Fleming v. Zant, 386 S.E.2d 339 (Ga. 1989)
E. Victim-Impact Evidence
O.C.G.A. sec. 17-10-1.2
Livingston v. State, 444 S.E.2d 748 (Ga. 1994) (Benham, J.,
dissenting)
F. Right to Counsel
Gibson v. Turpin, 513 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. 1999)
(8) Revisiting the Challenge of Furman and the Schism Between the Formal and Substantive Rationality of the Death Penalty
A. Race and the Death Penalty
1. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)
2. Proving Intentional Discrimination After McCleskey;
Is There a Remedy?
Dobbs v. Zant, 720 F. Supp. 1566 (N.D. Ga. 1989)
B. The Right to Counsel
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
(Terry) Williams v. Taylor, ___U.S.___ (No. 98-8384, April 18,
2000)
Messer v. Kemp, 474 U.S. 1088 (1986) (Marshall, J.,
dissenting from denial of certiorari)
Handouts:
Closing Argument for the Defense at Penalty Phase in State v.
Messer, Superior Court of Polk County, Georgia, 1980 Closing
argument in State v. Raulerson, Circuit Court of Duval
County, Florida, 1975
C. Capital Punishment and the Rule of Law
Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141 (Blackmun, J., dissenting
from denial of certiorari)
1. 1 All materials should be downloaded from the Courses on Line section of the school's web site: http:\\www.law.gsu.edu.