GIUDICE, CONDANNE FEDERALI INCOSTITUZIONALI

WASHINGTON, 01 LUG - Un giudice federale ha oggi decretato a New York che le norme in vigore per l'applicazione delle pene di morte federali sono incostituzionali.

   I condannati a morte da una corte federale sono molto pochi negli Stati Uniti: una esigua minoranza di quanti attendono l'esecuzione perche' condannati da corti statali.

   In un'ordinanza di 28 pagine, il giudice federale Jed Rakoff ha affermato che le modalita' della pena di morte federale ''privano gli imputati di una significativa possibilita' di provare la loro innocenza'' e ''creano un indebito rischio di mandare a morte innocenti, violando quindi il concetto di processo equo''.

   A memoria di specialisti della giustizia americana, ilgiudice Rakoff, lo stesso che, in queste ore, si sta occupando a New York della vicenda WorldCom, e' il primo a dichiarare

incostituzionale la pena di morte federale, le cui attuali norme sono entrate in vigore nel 1994. 

   Contro la sentenza, emessa nell'ambito del processo a due trafficanti di droga del Bronx, a New York, accusati di avere torturato e ucciso un informatore della polizia, nel giugno 1999, ci sara', probabilmente, un ricorso in appello.

  Se anche la corte d'appello del 2o circuito federale dovesse condividere l'opinione di Rakoff, allora ci potrebbe essere un blocco delle esecuzioni federali negli Stati di New York, del Connecticut e del Vermont. La sentenza non avrebbe invece impatto sulle sentenze di morte emesse dai tribunali dei 38 Stati dell'Unione che la praticano.

   Il giudice Rakoff, che fin da aprile aveva avvertito che stava valutando il problema della costituzionalita' della pena di morte federale, s'e' basato basato su studi e ricerche sulle condanne a morte di innocenti. Ma i procuratori federali hanno replicato alla sue tesi che, da quando la pena di morte federale esiste, cioe' da 14 anni, nessuno dei 31 imputati condannati a morte e' poi risultato innocente.

   Il parere di Rakoff arriva proprio nel giorno in cui il 'Washington Post', in un articolo in prima, attribuisce al ministro della giustizia John Ashcroft la volonta' di spingere i procuratori a sollecitare la pena di morte nei processi federali.

   Secondo il giornale, che cita documenti ufficiali e fonti dell'Amministrazione che chiedono di non essere identificate, Ashcroft, da quando ha assunto le sue funzioni, ha gia' rovesciato in 12 casi le raccomandazioni ricevute da pubblici ministeri, imponendo loro di sollecitare la pena di morte in casi in cui loro non volevano farlo.

   Attualmente, di fronte alle corti federali, ci sono 36 imputati, i due terzi dei quali rappresentano una minoranza etnica (47% sono neri, il 14% ispanici, solo il 33% bianchi).  

Judge Rules U.S. Death Penalty Violates the Constitution

Jul 1, 2002

By JERRY GRAY

A federal judge in New York declared the death penalty unconstitutional today, saying evidence has shown that there is an "undue risk" that a meaningful number of innocent people have been executed.

The ruling by Judge Jed S. Rakoff is the first to declare the current federal death penalty unconstitutional. And while it applies only in a pending case before Judge Rakoff, the ruling is certain to rekindle the debate over capital punishment.

 The decision came in the case of two men � Alan Qui�ones and Diego Rodriguez � who are facing trial on narcotics and murder charges and whose lawyers had argued in pretrial motions that the death penalty was unconstitutional.

 Judge Rakoff, who sits on the Federal District Court in Manhattan, had told lawyers in the case in a preliminary ruling in April that he intended to declare the death penalty act unconstitutional unless prosecutors could persuade him otherwise. Today, he followed through on that earlier thought.

 "In brief, the court found that the best available evidence indicates that, on the one hand, innocent people are sentenced to death with materially greater frequency than was previously supposed and that, on the other hand, convincing proof of their innocence often does not emerge until long after their convictions," Judge Rakoff wrote in his 28-page opinion.

 "It follows," he continued, "that implementation of the Federal Death Penalty Act not only deprives innocent people of a significant opportunity to prove their innocence, and thereby violates procedural due process, but also creates an undue risk of executing innocent people, and thereby violates substantive due process."

 Judge Rakoff's ruling is expected to be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) for the Second Circuit.

 Judge Rakoff, who issued his preliminary ruling on April 25, said he based his finding in part on academic research about death row inmates who had been wrongfully convicted. He also cited cases in which death row inmates had been exonerated through DNA and other evidence.

 Mr. Qui�ones and Mr. Rodriguez are scheduled to go on trial in September in connection with a drug-related killing in the Bronx three years ago. They are accused of torturing and killing an informant, Edwin Santiago, on June 27, 1999. Prosecutors had announced that they would seek the death penalty in the case, prompting defense lawyers to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal Death Penalty Act.

 Even before his final ruling today, Judge Rakoff's position on the issue had set off a debate between prosecutors and scientists.

 In arguing against the judge's preliminary position, prosecutors had said that the studies Judge Rakoff cited had "serious methodolgical flaws."

 That brought a response from the scientific community, with 42 criminologists, sociologists and psychologists submitting a "friend of the court" brief in which they attacked the prosecution's argument as inaccurate and unfair.

 In his ruling, Judge Rakoff noted that since 1993 at least 12 death row inmates have been exonerated through DNA testing. In each case, the defendant had been found guilty by a unanimous jury that concluded there was proof of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and convictions in each of the 12 cases were affirmed on appeal.

 The government argued that DNA testing is now available before a trial in many cases and will actually help reduce the risk of mistaken convictions.

 "This completely misses the point," Judge Rakoff responded. "What DNA testing has proved, beyond cavil, is the remarkable degree of fallibility in the basis fact-finding processes on which we rely in criminal cases."

 The United States Supreme Court banned capital punishment in 1972, but it was reinstated in 1976. New York is one of 38 states that has the death penalty.

 Judge Rakoff, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former federal prosecutor, was nominated by President Bill Clinton on Oct. 11, 1995, for a seat on the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York and he was confirmed by the Senate two months later. He joined the court in January 1996.

 Judge Rakoff has attracted considerable attention from the news media well before today.

 Last week he was named to oversee the Securities and Exchange Commission ( news - web sites)'s lawsuit charging WorldCom with accounting fraud. He has also become involved in the case of an innocent Egyptian student who was detained in connection with the attack on the World Trade Center. It was reported last week that Judge Rakoff was considering opening an inquiry into how the F.B.I. got what turned out to be a false confession from the student, who spent a month in jail before authorities released him, saying that he was not guilty of any involvement in the attack.

 In September of last year, Judge Rakoff became embroiled in an ethics debate, when he refused to recuse himself from a lawsuit against Texaco Inc. brought by a group of Ecuadorean Indians who accused the oil company of polluting their land in the Amazon rain forest ( news - web sites). Lawyers for the Indians said Judge Rakoff had attended an expenses-paid seminar in 1998 in Montana at which a former chairman of Texaco spoke. They argued that this created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 Judge Rakoff confirmed that he had attended the seminar, but he said the lawsuit was never discussed