Death Penalty Case Summary

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

According to a dozen recent studies an execution does save lives. For each inmate execution it is shown by studies that three to eighteen murders are prevented. By that it shows a big number that is getting prevented by murders.

4. Issue/s: Was it an error for the trial judge to accept a guilty plea without confirmation from the defendant that the plea was understood and voluntary?

Petitioner’s appeal from a denial of that motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals without any prejudice to relief under the Maryland. The petition for post- conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court; and on appeal the Court of appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Koppersmith’s testimony of his actions portrayed a picture of unintentional events. The judge referred to the Woods case, “ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

The Supreme court of Florida, has held that “that the trial court 's exercise of

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned, Elise Smith, Esquire, did prepare Defendants, Lewis E. Olson and Albert Dobiash's Interrogatories to answer.

Kulbicki’s file stayed in the state court until 2006, when Kulbicki added an additional claim that his defense attorneys did not adequately question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence presented by the CBLA. Kulbucki lost in the state courts and then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Appeals then vacated Kulbucki’s conviction based on the fact that Kulbucki’s attorneys did not question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence, thus the defense attorneys did not provide Kulbucki with effective assistance during the trial. However, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a per curiam opnion, that the Court of Appeals based the decision to vacate Kulbicki’s conviction on contemporary views of ballistic evidence. Since there was no reason for counsel to investigate the validity of the ballistic evidence in 1995, the attorneys provided effective assistance to Kulbicki because effective assistance did not require attorneys to verify the legitimacy of the ballistic evidence (Maryland v. Kulbicki, 136 S. Ct. 2

In determining the differences between a freestanding and gateway claim of actual innocence in habeas review, I will identify several factors that go into the courts procedures and verdict in deciding if the convicted petitioner is entitled to habeas relief. Some of these factors include the nature in which the petitioner is questioning their conviction, such as a constitutional error or new evidence surfacing. From that, I will explain how the court decides the standard of review in determining if the petitioner should be granted relief. Finally, I will explain which one of the two has a much higher chance of successfully being granted habeas relief.

Brooklyn Scobee Dr. David Marble LAW-100-43 10, November 2015 Annotated Bibliography Burgason, K., & Pazzani, L. (2014). The Death Penalty: A Multi-level Analysis of Public Opinion. American Journal Of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 818-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9261-7

When someone is going through the death row appeal process the state pays for their legal fees. One district attorney, Stan Garnett, estimated that the death penalty prosecution of a single case, including the trial and appeals to date, has cost some $18 million (Cost of Death Penalty, 2013). Further, Defense Counsel, Lindy Frolich, testified that, while a regular first degree murder case costs her agency about $16,000 per year, per case for the defense attorneys and costs, a death penalty case costs about $400,000 per year, per case (Cost of Death Penalty, 2013). There are multiple state reports that have data resembling the exponential price increase of death row process being more than life in prison without parole from amnestyusa.org.

“1. Has the Federal Circuit improperly abrogated the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284 by forbidding any award of enhanced damages unless there is a finding of willfulness under a rigid, two-part test, when this Court recently rejected an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute providing for attorneys’ fee awards in exceptional cases?

The stare decisis plays an important role in a court’s decision and contributes to the overall developmental process of a case. Also, the American criminal justice would not be what it is today if stare decisis were an inexorable command. If the court decisions were changed from one Judge to another, the American justice system would be very fluid and we would continue to reinvent the wheel. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Tennessee upheld Payne’s conviction and sentence as it was applied in Payne v. Tennessee in 1991. During the closing arguments of Payne’s sentencing, the victim impact statements were permissible from the victim’s grandmother by the prosecutor. The previous law did not prevent the victim impact statements from being admitted as evidence. I believe that stare decisis provides consistency, stability and equality in today’s criminal justice system. Additionally, stare decisis is vital to our Constitution and the future of the criminal justice system. The Judges and Justice have the basic responsibility to uphold the law in good faith. One of the principles of stare decisis is a court should not overturn a decision that was already considered settled. For example, I have a rule in my household that my kids will go to bed by 8:30 PM on school nights, so I have to consistently uphold that rule.

The sentencing phase was delayed to allow for a mental exam to be conducted on the killer. Two psychologists determined that China Arnold had an average IQ and no significant mental illness. Dr. Jeffrey Smalldon said China Arnold suffered from a ‘low-grade chronic depressive condition’ as well as alcohol and drug abuse. He said he found nothing “that would have justified the death of this child.” In arguing for the death sentence, Assistant Montgomery County Prosecutor Dan Brandt told the jury members quite rightly that there were NO factors that reduce the “purposeful murder of baby Paris in that microwave.” Defense attorney Kevin Lennen said that the death penalty should go only to the worst offenders. He pointed to evidence that his client