USA: PENA MORTE, GIUDICE SFIDA GOVERNO SU COSTITUZIONALITA'

WASHINGTON, 25 APR - Un giudice federale di New York ha  minacciato di abolire la pena di morte se l'Amministrazione americana non  sara' in grado di spiegare come mai cosi' tanti condannati risultano poi  essere innocenti.

 La minaccia del giudice distrettuale Jed Rakoff e' ufficiale: egli ha  stilato un ordinanza di 11 pagine in cui afferma di essere sul punto di  eliminare la pena di morte come possibile condanna per due imputati accusati  di narcotraffico e cospirazione per uccidere.

 Rakoff ha dato il governo tempo fino al 31 maggio per rispondere. Se non  ricevera' una risposta soddisfacente entro quella data, egli dichiarera'  anticostituzionale la pena di morte federale in base alla ''frequenza con  cui persone innocenti vengono mandate nel braccio della morte''.  

Judge Questions the Constitutionality of Federal Death Penalty

 U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said he was ready to declare the federal death penalty unconstitutional on the ground that innocent people are being sentenced to death "with a frequency far greater than previously supposed." In an order regarding the death penalty eligibility of two men facing capital charges, Rakoff wrote: "If the court were compelled to decide the issue today, it would . . . grant the defendants' motion to dismiss all death penalty aspects of this case on the ground that the federal death penalty statute is unconstitutional." Rakoff is giving federal prosecutors an opportunity to present arguments on the subject before he issues his final ruling in late May. (Associated Press, 4/25/02)

 25-APR-02 19

 BC-US-Federal Death Penalty is unconstitutional

 NEW YORK -  A judge said Thursday he was ready to  declare the federal death penalty unconstitutional unless the government can  quickly explain why so many condemned inmates turn out to be innocent.

 U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff made the conclusion in an 11-page order  in which he said he was about to toss out the death penalty eligibility of  two men charged in a drug and murder conspiracy.

 In doing so, he said, he would find the federal death penalty law  unconstitutional on the grounds that innocent people were being sent to  death row <with a frequency far greater than previously supposed.> He gave  the government a final opportunity to present arguments on the subject  before he issues a final ruling after May 31.

 <If the court were compelled to decide the issue today, it would ... grant  the defendants' motion to dismiss all death penalty aspects of this case on  the grounds that the federal death penalty statute is unconstitutional,> 

25 apr 2003

 U.S. judge set to outlaw federal death penalty

 NEW YORK,  - A U.S. judge on 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 Sept. 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 Bill 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.   

 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.

  26 apr 2002

  LARRY NEUMEISTER -  A federal judge on Thursday said he was prepared to declare the federal death penalty  unconstitutional on the grounds that too many condemned inmates turn out to  be innocent.

 U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said he would throw out the federal death  penalty in the case of two men charged with drug and murder conspiracy  unless the government can explain the number of wrongful convictions that  wind up on death row.

 He gave the government a final opportunity to present arguments before he  issues a final ruling after May 31. 

 Citing post-conviction DNA testing that has freed 12 condemned inmates  since 1985, Rakoff said that the possibility of an innocent person being  executed would be <difficult to square with basic constitutional guarantees,  let alone simple justice.> Rakoff's ruling would not affect the death  penalty laws of individual states.

 The government would probably appeal any ruling by Rakoff against the  federal death penalty, limiting its effect to the case against the two men. 

 If the federal appeals court in New York upheld Rakoff, the ruling would  apply to federal cases in New York state, Connecticut and Vermont.

 The U.S. Supreme Court previously has upheld the law's constitutionality. 

 Federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the case against Alan  Quinones and Diego Rodriguez, members of a Bronx drug gang charged in the  1999 killing of an informant. Their trial is set for Sept. 2.

 Jean Barrett, a defense attorney in the case, said a decision by Rakoff  against the death penalty statute would be courageous.

 Marvin Smilon, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney James B.  Comey, said prosecutors had not yet seen Rakoff's order and would not  comment.

 26 apr 2002

 U.S. judge may rule against death penalty

 By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, 

A U.S. judge on  Thursday said he is prepared to rule the federal death penalty  unconstitutional but will give the government a "last opportunity" to  convince him otherwise.

 An unconstitutionality ruling would apply only in the Southern District  of New York, which covers Manhattan and the Bronx. It would not apply to the  death penalty in individual states.

 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 persons." The judge issued his  opinion at a time when death penalty opponents are growing more vocal, and  even some supporters are calling for greater procedural safeguards.

 The issue arose in a narcotics and murder case in which two of eight  defendants, Alan Quinones and Diego Rodriguez, pleaded not guilty. The  government sought the death penalty for both defendants in the trial, which  is scheduled to begin Sept. 2, the opinion said.

 "It's obviously a very bold step on the judge's part," said Robert  Pugsley, a professor at the Southwestern University School of Law in Los  Angeles and a death penalty supporter.

 "Certainly his order will be appealed to the Second Circuit Court of  Appeals, which in my view is likely to strike down his order as premature  because the case has not yet begun." DUE PROCESS Lawyers for the  defendants sought to dismiss the death penalty aspects of the case, arguing  that innocent people could be put to death before techniques, such as DNA  testing, or other evidence may later emerge and establish 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 Bill Clinton.

 The judge called "no longer ... tenable" the U.S. Supreme Court's  implicit assumption in a 1993 case, Herrera v. Collins, that evidentiary and  procedural safeguards and the appeals process would render "highly unlikely"  that an executed person would later be found innocent. 

 The "state-sponsored death of a meaningful number of innocent people"  could deprive those people of due process, the judge said. Accordingly, "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," he said.

 A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York,  Marvin Smilon, said, "We're reviewing the opinion." He declined  further comment.

 "HAD ITS CHANCE" Kevin McNally, a death penalty defense specialist  at Frankfort, Kentucky-based McNally & O'Donnell who represents Quinones,  hailed the judge's opinion.

 "The modern death penalty has had its chance over the last 25 years and  has produced repeated death sentences for innocent citizens," he said. "It's  about time that a judge tackled this distressing development. I wouldn't be  surprised if the government appealed." Pugsley said he shares Rakoff's  concerns about executing innocent people, and that "the national concerns  expressed in his order are shared by many Americans, even those who support  the death penalty.

 Still, he said, "I don't believe this particular court's initiative will  stand up." The 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.

 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.

 Thirty-eight states have death penalty laws on their books, but the  American Bar Association has called for a national moratorium on executions.