Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Clemency Request
See e.g., Equal Justice Initiative, The Death Penalty in Alabama: Judge Override 4, 8, 16 (July 2011), available at
http://eji.org/files/Override_Report.pdf (last visited March 16, 2016) (Because trial judges have almost unlimited
discretion in capital sentencing, and because reviewing judges also are subject to reelection pressure, the override
decision is perhaps the most vulnerable to political pressure.; [R]ecent studies show that elections exert significant
direct influence on decision-making in death penalty cases.; [P]olitical pressure injects unfairness and arbitrariness
into override decisions.; The data suggests that override in Alabama is heavily influenced by arbitrary factors such
as the timing of judicial elections . . . .); Paul Brace & Brent D. Boyea, State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty,
and the Practice of Electing Judges, 52 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 360, 370 (2008) ([E]lections and strong public opinion [in
support of capital punishment] exert a notable and significant direct influence on judge decision making in [capital]
cases . . . .); Karin E. Garvey, Eighth Amendmentthe Constitutionality of the Alabama Capital Sentencing
Scheme, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1411, 1434-35 (1996) (observing the political pressure on elected judges to
support the death penalty simply increases the arbitrariness of the sentences imposed by Alabama judges);
Stephen B. Bright & Patrick J. Keenan, Judges and the Politics of Death: Deciding Between the Bill of Rights and
the Next Election in Capital Cases, 75 B.U. L. Rev. 759, 792-93 (1995) (observing [t]he political liability facing
judges who enforce the Bill of Rights in capital cases undermines the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the
state judiciary, including in deciding whether to exercise judicial override in capital cases).
3
See Michael L. Radelet, Overriding Jury Sentencing Recommendations in Florida Capital Cases: An Update and
Possible Half-Requiem, 2011 Mich. St. L. Rev. 793, 804 (2011).
4
Woodward v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 405, 408-09 (2013) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
Id. at 407.
Id.
outweighed the aggravators. 7 Juries are carefully instructed about the burden of proof and their
duties in this regard. When asked to sit on a capital jury, we ask a great deal of our citizenry.
That service is undermined when the decision they carefully made is overridden by a single
elected official.
You have noted the importance of the jurys role, when you have denied clemency in the
past. You have stated that you intended to honor the decisions of the jury which recommended
the death penalty. The Supreme Court has also recognized that juries generally are more
accurate fact finders than are judges, particularly when it comes to the imposition of the death
penalty. Justice Breyer stated, in his concurrence in Ring v. Arizona, that the danger of
unwarranted imposition of the [death] penalty cannot be avoided unless the decision to impose
the death penalty is made by a jury rather than by a single government official.8 In its decision
upholding the death penalty as a constitutional punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court stated one
of the most important functions any jury can perform in making . . . a selection [between life
imprisonment and death for a defendant convicted in a capital case] is to maintain a link between
contemporary community values and the penal system.9 In that same decision, the Court noted
that evolving standards have influenced juries in recent decades to be more discriminating in
imposing the sentence of death. . . . the reluctance of juries in many cases to impose the sentence
may well reflect the humane feeling that this most irrevocable of sanctions should be reserved
for a small number of extreme cases.10
We ask you to use your voice and your authority to encourage the legislature to right this
wrong. We also ask that you right this wrong directly, by having a policy of commuting
sentences to life in prison without parole to individuals whom the juries voted to impose life
without the possibility of parole.11
Commuting death sentences to life in prison without parole will not contradict any
decision by the Alabama courts since Hurst was decided. After Hurst was decided, the United
States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Alabama courts in several cases and sent them
back to the Alabama courts for further consideration in light of Hurst. But the Alabama Court of
Criminal Appeals has not yet ruled on any of these cases. While the Alabama Supreme Court
issued a ruling in September, denying a Hurst challenge, the case before it did not have a judicial
override.
Pursuant to the law, both of those findings must be made in order to impose a death sentence in Alabama.
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 618 (Breyer, J., concurring) (internal quotations and citation omitted)).
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 181 (1976) (citing Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 519 n. 15 (1968)).
10
Id.
11
The attorneys on this list do not represent the death row inmates included in this clemency request and by signing
this letter are not engaged in representation of these individuals. Rather, by signing this letter, these attorneys are
asking you to ensure Alabama follows what we believe to be the law as set out by the United States Supreme Court.
Commuting death sentences to life in prison without parole is not without precedent.
Several governors have commuted the sentences of their states entire death row populations,
since the death penalty was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1976: Governor Martin OMalley,
Maryland, 2015; Governor Jon Corzine, New Jersey, 2007; Governor George Ryan, Illinois,
2003; Governor Tony Anaya, New Mexico, 1986.
We do not make this request without serious thought and consideration. We recognize as
Governor you represent the people of this State, so that any request that you use your voice as
Governor is not a small request. This is a question of justice and an opportunity for you to speak
in favor of the power of Alabamas citizens when serving as jurors. In this instance, you can use
your voice to give Alabama juries their voice back.
Asking the legislature to re-write the statute and do away with judicial override is
certainly a step in the right direction, and would let Alabama juries know that you support their
right to be heard. Granting commutations, consistent with the decisions of Alabama juries, will
uphold the Alabama jurors voices.
Governor Bentley, just as you noted when signing the legislation exonerating the
Scottsboro boys, A[w]e need to right the wrongs that have been done in the past. . . . It is
important to confront our history and secure justice whenever we can. [And, while] we cannot
take back what happened, []we can make it right by moving forward.@
Judicial override of life recommendations is unconstitutional and simply wrong. You
have the power to right this wrong by urging the legislature to act now to stop this process, and
by granting commutations and returning the life without parole sentence originally deemed
appropriate by the jurors. We respectfully request that you use that power.12
Respectfully,
12
In the event you do not choose to exercise your power to grant clemency, we ask that these death row inmates not
be precluded from future clemency filings based on that denial.
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23