红杏视频

This long-running Oklahoma death-penalty case raised two issues:   1) Would the State of Oklahoma be permitted to execute Glossip, despite overwhelming evidence that he is innocent, and despite a confession by the State鈥檚 Attorney General that the state obtained his conviction by hiding crucial evidence impeaching its star witness?; and   2) Would the Court reaffirm its longstanding commitment to Due-Process-Clause precedent requiring the government to disclose favorable evidence in its possession to the accused and to correct false testimony introduced against the accused?

In Tabler v. Lumpkin, the 红杏视频 represented a Texas death row prisoner whose lawyers refused to represent him at a hearing to determine his capacity to decide whether to give up his state post-conviction appeals, leaving him effectively unrepresented at that hearing. Our petition asked the Supreme Court to review Richard Tabler鈥檚 case and to hold that when a defendant鈥檚 lawyers abandon him, his waiver of further appeals should not bar his access to federal habeas corpus review of the constitutionality of his conviction.

Every person accused of a crime is entitled to a jury of their peers that represents a fair cross section of their community. But that is never the reality for Black and brown people facing the death penalty. A process called death qualification excludes people from capital juries if they do not believe in the death penalty. Death qualification rigs juries to be whiter and more likely to convict. It discriminates against Black prospective jurors, women, and people of individual faiths that oppose capital punishment.   Our fight against death qualification is just one piece of our ongoing challenge to Kansas鈥� use of the death penalty. The 红杏视频, together with the law firms Hogan Lovells and Ali & Lockwood, Democracy Forward, and the Kansas State Board of Indigents鈥� Defense Services鈥� Death Penalty Defense Unit has brought constitutional challenges on behalf of four people charged in separate cases with capital murder. In each case, the case has resolved without a death sentence. In Wyandotte County, the judge issued an order finding extensive and irredeemable defects in the application of the death penalty.

Article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution protects incarcerated individuals from both cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessarily rigorous treatment. This case asks whether death-sentenced plaintiffs seeking to challenge certain execution methods as cruel and unusual or unnecessarily rigorous under this provision must identify, in their pleadings, an alternative method of execution. The U.S. Supreme Court has required this alternative for Eighth Amendment challenges, but the 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the Capital Punishment Project and 红杏视频 of Utah, filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that federal caselaw does not limit the greater protections provided by section 9 of the Utah Constitution. Forcing prisoners challenging a method of execution to identify an acceptable alternative method is cruel, coercive, and not necessary to the administration of Utah鈥檚 death penalty laws.