Washington, DC (March 26, 2001) -- The last time the U.S. Supreme Court heard John Paul Penry's death penalty case, in 1989, it sent the case back to Texas and directed the courts there to see that jury instructions allowed for meaningful consideration of Penry's mental retardation and history of childhood abuse as factors mitigating against the death penalty.
Texas eventually passed a statute in compliance with the Court's decision, but not before Penry was retried. Now Penry, and NACDL as amicus curiae, claim that the instruction in the second trial was confusing and required the jury to contradict other instructions in the case in order to conclude that Penry's retardation and other mitigating factors allowed them to not impose the death penalty.
Penry's case will be argued in the Supreme Court for the second time on Tuesday.
"This case shows how important it is to explain to a jury weighing life and death the significant impact of mental retardation on the coping skills of people involved in the criminal justice system," said Edward Chikofsky an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School in New York and co-author of NACDL's amicus brief with Russell Hanser of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering.
The Supreme Court's recent stays of cases involving the execution of mentally retarded inmates in Missouri and North Carolina have led to speculation that the Court might address the constitutionality of such executions, even though the issue has not been directly raised in this appeal. In the original Penry case, the Court declined, by a 5-4 ruling, to declare execution of mentally retarded persons unconstitutional, citing a lack of "national consensus" in that only two states had outlawed such executions at the time. Currently 13 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have laws banning execution of the mentally retarded, while 12 states have no death penalty at all.
Chikofsky can be reached at (212) 289-1062.
Pattern Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide
In a criminal trial, cross-examination of the prosecution’s forensic expert may make the difference between victory or defeat.
2020 Sample Motions Collection Update
NACDL’s 2020 Sample Motions Collection is the follow-up to our wildly popular 2019 Sample Motions Collection and contains the newest and most recent additions to our ever-expanding Sample Motions library.
State v. Stone - A Case Study on Child Sexual Molestation & Sexual Battery
The criminal defense attorney tasked with defending such a case has to be prepared to not only show reasonable doubt, but to answer this question: If it did not happen, how is it that the child believes it did happen?
POZNER ON CROSS: Advanced Cross of Experts & Officers in DUI Cases
It’s not your strong opening argument. It’s not how many of your impassioned objections the judge sustains. It’s not even how you tie your theory of the case together with a dazzling closing statement bow. What wins your trial is your cross.
This is a sponsored ad
Generating Qualified Leads for NACDL Attorneys
NACDL Communications Department
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is the preeminent organization advancing the mission of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL's many thousands of direct members in 28 countries – and 90 state, provincial and local affiliate organizations totaling up to 40,000 attorneys – include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness and promoting a rational and humane criminal justice system.