Gold Dome Live is moving!
Our new spot will allow us to get the news to you even faster and make commenting easier. Please bookmark the new site and sign up for our rss feed:
http://blogs.ajc.com/gold-dome-live/
AJC.com > Legislature > Blog > Archives > 2007 > January > 29 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBill gives judges more discretion on death penalty
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A Gwinnett County jury in 2005 unanimously decided Wesley Harris kidnapped and murdered a 2-year-old girl and her mother, stuffed them in a trunk and set the car on fire. But the jury split 10-2 on whether to give Harris the death penalty, and his life was spared.
Some Georgia legislators are hoping to change state law so people like Harris could be condemned to death even if only nine jurors agree on the sentence.
House Majority Whip Barry Fleming (R-Harlem) is citing the Harris case as part of his reasoning for introducing House Bill 185.
The bill gives judges the discretion to impose the death sentence on non-unanimous jury verdicts in which at least nine jurors voted for execution. That means verdicts of 9-3, 10-2 and 11-1 could lead to a death sentence. Current Georgia law requires a unanimous decision by the 12-person jury. HB 185 does not change the requirement of a unanimous jury needed for conviction.
Prosecutors believe the change will help them secure death penalty verdicts, which are increasingly difficult to get as questions mount over the imposition of capital punishment in the U.S. Death penalty lawyers say such a change would put Georgia in a category of only a few states that allow elected judges to impose a death penalty without a unanimous jury verdict.
Fleming said prosecutors sought the bill. He maintains that during jury selection some people will say they can impose the death penalty if necessary, but later refuse to do so on moral grounds.
“People morally opposed to the death penalty obviously aren’t opposed to fibbing,” Fleming said Monday.
Other key lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Jerry Keen, have signed on to the bill.
Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter said HB 185 is a “great idea.”
“One juror said she could not vote to put another black man on death row and that was the end of that case,” Porter said of the Harris case, which his office tried. “Even though that juror said she could vote for the death penalty, she refused to particpate in further deliberations.”
Porter said he believes defense attorneys try to pick jurors in death penalty trials, based on race and gender, who are less likely to impose capital punishment.
Veteran death penalty lawyer Jack Martin dismissed those claims by prosecutors as “urban myth.”
Martin said there can be many reasons why jurors don’t impose the death sentence: They might find something redeeming about the defendant; there might be a lingering question of guilt; there might be a mental illness that could help explain the crime.
“Before you impose the ultimate sentence, there needs to be a consensus of the community — not a majority,” said Martin.
Majority verdicts allow minorities, particularly African-Americans, to be ignored during jury deliberations, he said.
“This is unique, and it would be venturing into uncharted waters under the U.S. and the Georgia Constitution,” Martin said.
Stephen Bright, a senior lawyer at the Southern Center for Human Rights and a nationally-recognized expert on death penalty law, said the bill represents a “marked” departure from current law.
Juries in Alabama and Florida currently only make a recommendation on the death penalty, and the decision is ultimately up to the judge.
Bright said leaving the decision to elected judges in non-unanimous verdicts, as proposed in HB 185, is particularly troublesome.
“There are political considerations that are going to come into play that don’t come into play when you have a largely anonymous jury … and no one person is the lightning rod for the decision,” Bright said. “I think the history in Alabama and other states has been that judges are much more likely to vote for the death penalty particularly if there’s an election coming up.”
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: politics
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By mo
January 30, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this
I think to lower the bar on death penalty cases is terrible. To reduce the number of jurors who agrees to put a person to death sounds bloodthirsty.
Now I hear of one unsubstantiated case of a person who doesn’t want to “put another black man to death” and we want to change case law? Please! That case sounds racially charged and it feeds upon latent prejudices.
Additionally, we have been seeing death row inmates being set free due to other evidence. We do not know, in some cases, if that person actually committed the murders, so we would need all 12 jurors to speak about the penalties.
By Keith Lynch
January 30, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The main purpose for me writing this book is to reveal how the indigent in America is victimized by the legal system.This victimization of the indigent is the direct results of the courts upholding rulings that give law enforcement agencies the power to violate the Civil Liberties of the under-class.Because the nations indigent has no financial clout, owns no property,has no political power nor any group solidarity, their civil liberties are easily taken without an outcry from anyone. As a result, the poor are filling the prisons and being used as indentured servants. Now a Bill is being introduced to give judges the discretion to impose the death sentence on nonunanimous jury verdicts in which at least nine jurors voted for execution. Have anyone been reading the false imprisonment of innocent man and women being released from prison after spending years of their lives behind Georgia’s bars. Review my story.
Introduction:
Keith Lynch v. State of Georgia
Opening Statement
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, it is the intention of the Defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Keith Lynch did not kill or cause the death of his wife, Mrs. Gina B. Lynch. It is also our intention to prove that detectives of the Dekalb County Major Felony Unit have not only failed the Lynch family in finding out what truly happened to Mrs. Lynch on May 28, 2001, but also failed the citizens of the state of Georgia. www.kllundypublishingllc.com
By Keith Lynch
January 30, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The main purpose for me writing this book is to reveal how the indigent in America is victimized by the legal system. This victimization of the indigent is the direct results of the courts upholding rulings that give law enforcement agencies the power to violate the Civil Liberties of the under-class. Because the nations indigent has no financial clout, owns no property, has no political power nor any group solidarity, their civil liberties are easily taken without an outcry from anyone. As a result, the poor are filling the prisons and being used as indentured servants. Now a Bill is being introduce that would give judges the discretion to impose the death sentence on nonunanimous jury verdicts in which at least nine jurors voted for execution. Have Georgians learned anything? Innocent people are being released from Georgia’s prisons after DNA samples have cleared them of crime they where convicted of committing. What will the public say after it discovered they killed an innocent person and left a child parentless?
Introduction:
Keith Lynch v. State of Georgia
Opening Statement
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, it is the intention of the Defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Keith Lynch did not kill or cause the death of his wife, Mrs. Gina B. Lynch. It is also our intention to prove that detectives of the Dekalb County Major Felony Unit have not only failed the Lynch family in finding out what truly happened to Mrs. Lynch on May 28, 2001, but also failed the citizens of the state of Georgia. www.kllundypublishingllc.com
By SGA
January 31, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this
Judges have too much “discretion” for which they routinely abuse, particularly in south GA. Minorities and indigent defendants, no doubt, would be discriminated against. This bill is dangerous!!