It is absolutely essential to consider the abject ineffectiveness of counsel in a significant number of death penalty cases involving defendants with serious mental disabilities and how such ineffectiveness is often (scandalously) accepted by reviewing courts. We must also assess all of the concerns raised in this excellent paper by Hiromoto and colleagues through the filter of therapeutic jurisprudence as a way to guide counsel to thoroughly investigate all aspects of such cases (especially those involving defendants with PTSD) and to present substantial mitigating evidence to the fact finders in the sorts of cases the authors are discussing
The common wisdom is that there are two related villains in the saga of the “criminalization of pers...
In five decisions handed down on July 2, 1976, the United States Supreme Court held that the death p...
This article appears in the Hofstra Law Review symposium issue on the Supplementary Guidelines for t...
It is absolutely essential to consider the abject ineffectiveness of counsel in a significant number...
Anyone who has been involved with death penalty litigation in the past four decades knows that one o...
In spite of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ford v. Wainwright (1986), Atkins v. Virginia (2002), a...
In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Vi...
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has created two categorical exemptions to the death penalty....
This article appears in the Hofstra Law Review symposium issue on the Supplementary Guidelines for t...
The legal standards for reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing are unde...
In Strickland v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court issued a seminal holding that single-ha...
The Task Force on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty (Task Force) established by the Individual...
One of the open secrets of death penalty law and policy is the astonishingly high percentage of indi...
This article examines these issues in the context of an important and emerging constitutional challe...
The Constitution of the United States prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” H...
The common wisdom is that there are two related villains in the saga of the “criminalization of pers...
In five decisions handed down on July 2, 1976, the United States Supreme Court held that the death p...
This article appears in the Hofstra Law Review symposium issue on the Supplementary Guidelines for t...
It is absolutely essential to consider the abject ineffectiveness of counsel in a significant number...
Anyone who has been involved with death penalty litigation in the past four decades knows that one o...
In spite of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ford v. Wainwright (1986), Atkins v. Virginia (2002), a...
In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Vi...
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has created two categorical exemptions to the death penalty....
This article appears in the Hofstra Law Review symposium issue on the Supplementary Guidelines for t...
The legal standards for reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing are unde...
In Strickland v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court issued a seminal holding that single-ha...
The Task Force on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty (Task Force) established by the Individual...
One of the open secrets of death penalty law and policy is the astonishingly high percentage of indi...
This article examines these issues in the context of an important and emerging constitutional challe...
The Constitution of the United States prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” H...
The common wisdom is that there are two related villains in the saga of the “criminalization of pers...
In five decisions handed down on July 2, 1976, the United States Supreme Court held that the death p...
This article appears in the Hofstra Law Review symposium issue on the Supplementary Guidelines for t...