danielle
04-26-2002, 07:24 AM
Gives the DOJ 'last opportunity' to change his mind
April 25, 2002 Posted: 6:48 PM EDT (2248 GMT)
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A U.S. judge Thursday said he is prepared to rule the federal death penalty unconstitutional but will give the government a "last opportunity" to convince him otherwise.
Judge Jed Rakoff of the Manhattan federal court gave U.S. Justice Department lawyers until May 15 to argue whether retaining capital punishment as a means of deterrence and retribution "can constitutionally justify" the knowing execution of innocent people.
The issue arose in a narcotics and murder case in which two of eight defendants, Alan Quinones and Diego Rodriguez, pleaded innocent. The government sought the death penalty for both defendants in the trial, which is scheduled to begin September 2.
Attorneys for the defendants sought to dismiss the death penalty aspects of the case, arguing that innocent people, especially nonwhites, may be put to death because of, among other things, the fallibility of DNA testing.
They also argued that some defendants may be executed before techniques or evidence emerge that may establish their innocence.
"We now know, in a way almost unthinkable even a decade ago, that our system of criminal justice, for all its protections, is sufficiently fallible that innocent people are convicted of capital crimes with some frequency," wrote Rakoff, appointed to the bench by President Clinton.
He said the "state-sponsored death of a meaningful number of innocent people" could deprive those people of due process. Accordingly, he said "if the court were compelled to decide the issue today, it would ... dismiss all death penalty aspects of this case on the ground that the federal death penalty statute is unconstitutional."
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, Marvin Smilon, said "we're reviewing the opinion." He declined further comment.
Kevin McNally, a death penalty defense specialist at Frankfort, Kentucky-based McNally & O'Donnell who represents Quinones, hailed the ruling.
"The modern death penalty has had its chance over the last 25 years and has produced repeated death sentences for innocent citizens," he said in an interview. "It's about time that a judge tackled this distressing development. I wouldn't be surprised if the government appealed."
The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. There have been 770 U.S. death sentences carried out since then, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, and McNally said 100 innocent people have been freed from death row over that time.
Thirty-eight states have death penalty laws on their books, but the American Bar Association has called for a national moratorium on executions.
Earlier this month, an Illinois task force set up by Republican Gov. George Ryan urged imposing procedural and other safeguards to ensure that death sentences be imposed more fairly. The governor in 2000 suspended executions after several death-row inmates were found to be innocent.
April 25, 2002 Posted: 6:48 PM EDT (2248 GMT)
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A U.S. judge Thursday said he is prepared to rule the federal death penalty unconstitutional but will give the government a "last opportunity" to convince him otherwise.
Judge Jed Rakoff of the Manhattan federal court gave U.S. Justice Department lawyers until May 15 to argue whether retaining capital punishment as a means of deterrence and retribution "can constitutionally justify" the knowing execution of innocent people.
The issue arose in a narcotics and murder case in which two of eight defendants, Alan Quinones and Diego Rodriguez, pleaded innocent. The government sought the death penalty for both defendants in the trial, which is scheduled to begin September 2.
Attorneys for the defendants sought to dismiss the death penalty aspects of the case, arguing that innocent people, especially nonwhites, may be put to death because of, among other things, the fallibility of DNA testing.
They also argued that some defendants may be executed before techniques or evidence emerge that may establish their innocence.
"We now know, in a way almost unthinkable even a decade ago, that our system of criminal justice, for all its protections, is sufficiently fallible that innocent people are convicted of capital crimes with some frequency," wrote Rakoff, appointed to the bench by President Clinton.
He said the "state-sponsored death of a meaningful number of innocent people" could deprive those people of due process. Accordingly, he said "if the court were compelled to decide the issue today, it would ... dismiss all death penalty aspects of this case on the ground that the federal death penalty statute is unconstitutional."
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, Marvin Smilon, said "we're reviewing the opinion." He declined further comment.
Kevin McNally, a death penalty defense specialist at Frankfort, Kentucky-based McNally & O'Donnell who represents Quinones, hailed the ruling.
"The modern death penalty has had its chance over the last 25 years and has produced repeated death sentences for innocent citizens," he said in an interview. "It's about time that a judge tackled this distressing development. I wouldn't be surprised if the government appealed."
The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. There have been 770 U.S. death sentences carried out since then, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, and McNally said 100 innocent people have been freed from death row over that time.
Thirty-eight states have death penalty laws on their books, but the American Bar Association has called for a national moratorium on executions.
Earlier this month, an Illinois task force set up by Republican Gov. George Ryan urged imposing procedural and other safeguards to ensure that death sentences be imposed more fairly. The governor in 2000 suspended executions after several death-row inmates were found to be innocent.