Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 201 to 202 of 202

Thread: Tennessee Capital Punishment News

  1. #201
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Judge strikes down law allowing Tennessee attorney general to argue certain death penalty cases

    BY ADRIAN SAINZ
    The Associated Press

    Republican lawmakers violated the Tennessee Constitution when they passed a law this spring giving the state attorney general more authority to argue certain death penalty cases, according to a judge’s ruling Monday.

    The new law allows the attorney general to step in and take over post-conviction capital cases. But Shelby County Judge Paula Skahan said that’s unconstitutional because it removes the power of the locally elected district attorney to argue them. The state attorney general is an appointed position, not elected.

    The office of Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said it will appeal Monday’s decision, which affects death row inmate Larry McKay’s motion for another trial based on new evidence.

    Some attorneys and Democratic lawmakers say the new law targeted progressive district attorneys who have expressed reluctance to pursue the death penalty. Attorneys for inmates fear the state could use the law to argue against considering DNA evidence and intellectual disabilities.

    The law, passed in April, involves proceedings that are outside the traditional appeals process in death penalty cases. Those include going before a trial court to present new evidence, request DNA testing, or argue that a defendant has an intellectual disability. The attorney general oversees traditional appeals. The judge said Monday that in trial court matters, the state Constitution designates the district attorney as a state representative

    If it stands, the ruling would affect other cases in Tennessee where death row inmates are challenging their convictions outside the appeals process.

    McKay’s lawyer, Robert Hutton, filed the motion to disqualify Skrmetti from intervening. Hutton said the ruling “strikes down an unconstitutional law,” which was the result of what he called “overreach” by the state Legislature.

    Under the law passed by the GOP-led Tennessee Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, Skrmetti would have replaced Shelby County District Attorney Steven Mulroy in McKay’s case.

    Mulroy supported McKay’s motion, which argued that the new law hinders the district attorney’s ability to fulfill his responsibilities under the state Constitution. The attorney general is picked by Tennessee’s Supreme Court.

    The judge withheld a ruling on whether the law violates the rights of voters who elect local district attorneys across the state.

    Opponents of the law have called it the latest example of attempts by GOP governors and Legislatures in several states to take on locally elected officials who have deprioritized enforcement of laws they deem unnecessary.

    In recent years, other district attorneys around the country have refused to prosecute cases related to some Republican-passed state laws, from voting restrictions to limits on protesting. In Georgia, Republican lawmakers passed a bill in March establishing a commission to discipline and remove prosecutors who they believe aren’t sufficiently fighting crime.

    Republican state Sen. Brent Taylor, the bill’s sponsor, has said that district attorneys could be unfamiliar with the sometimes decades-old death penalty cases under appeal. That means the post-conviction challenges “lose their adversarial characteristic that ensures justice,” Taylor said.

    Taylor also said victims’ families would be better off communicating with just the attorney general’s office.

    The attorney general’s office said it respectfully disagrees with the court’s decision.

    “Ensuring the adversarial system remains fully engaged over the life of a capital case is our obligation to the victims’ families because no family should be deprived of justice” said Elizabeth Lane Johnson, a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, in a statement released after the ruling.

    Mulroy in Memphis and Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk in Nashville both have said that they oppose the death penalty. State Sen. Raumesh Akbari, the Democratic minority leader, has said the law shouldn’t have been changed because of possible dislike for the “policies of our more liberal district attorneys.”

    Lawyers for the attorney general’s office argued that the law violated no part of the Tennessee Constitution and that McKay has not shown how he was negatively affected in ways that are not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” The attorney general’s office also denied that the law curtails voters’ rights.

    McKay was convicted of two murders during a robbery in Memphis and sentenced to death 40 years ago. McKay’s motion claims new scientific methods have revealed that the firearms evidence presented at trial was unreliable.

    His codefendant in the case, Michael Sample, was recently released from death row after he was found to be intellectually disabled.

    https://apnews.com/article/death-pen...74e1570145d119
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  2. #202
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Shelby Co. judge says Tennessee attorney general can appeal death penalty review ruling

    By Lucas Finton
    The Commercial Appeal

    The Tennessee Attorney General's Office will be allowed to appeal Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Paula Skahan's ruling that a newly enacted state law unconstitutionally strips power from elected district attorneys.

    The law, which Skahan ruled unconstitutional on July 17, gives the state attorney general the power to prosecute collateral reviews ― reviews for errors in trials or sentencings ― of death penalty convictions. Those cases begin when a defense attorney files a petition of coram nobis, which is typically filed after other avenues for appeal have been exhausted.

    Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy and Memphis defense attorney Robert Hutton argued against the law saying it violated people's voting rights, that the Tennessee General Assembly did not give proper notice to the public about the law and that it wrongfully removed jurisdiction from district attorneys.

    Skahan did not rule on the voting rights issue but ruled in favor of Mulroy and Hutton in the other two areas. Laws are ruled unconstitutional if a judge rules in favor of a single prong of an argument.

    In her reasoning for granting the appeal, Skahan cited potential harm for all parties by prolonging the case, preventing expenses from the attorney general having to argue similar cases and preventing potentially conflicting rulings from happening.

    "Currently, these same issues are pending or are likely to be pending soon before various trial courts throughout the state in eighteen other cases," Skahan wrote. "Given the absence of controlling authority, there is a substantial risk of inconsistent opinions on these questions throughout the state."

    The motion to challenge the law was originally filed by Hutton— who is representing Larry McKay, a man who is currently facing the death penalty.

    Issues of standing ruled on

    Skahan's ruling certified two questions for appeal. The first, which all three parties requested, is whether her ruling correctly found that the attorney general being assigned collateral review cases violates the Tennessee Constitution. The second, which was requested by Mulroy and Hutton, is if the AG should be disqualified for the Tennessee General Assembly not providing adequate notice when amending the bill.

    Although all three parties in the case agreed that an appeal should be granted, the attorney general argued that Hutton did not have standing to file to disqualify the attorney general from the case. Skahan, in her ruling, agreed with Mulroy and Hutton's arguments that the standing issue could be disregarded.

    "For the reasons set forth in DA Mulroy's and McKay's pleadings, the court finds that the issue of standing is moot," Skahan wrote. "The AG has specifically conceded DA Mulroy's standing to move for disqualification in his written submissions and in open court.

    The AG has affirmatively waived and knowingly forfeited any challenge to DA Mulroy's right to move for disqualification. DA Mulroy is a proper party and appellee in this cause, thus McKay's standing is utterly irrelevant."

    Skahan also confirmed her order for a stay in the McKay case while the appeal is pending.

    Her ruling was entered Tuesday, and the attorney general will have ten days to file the appeal, which the office has repeatedly indicated its intent to do, with the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals.

    The law was initially introduced as a bill to tackle rape kit backlogs but was changed to assign collateral review cases to the state attorney general. Mulroy and Hutton both argued that the law takes away autonomy from elected district attorneys and gives them to the unelected attorney general.

    Tennessee State House Minority Leader Rep. William Lambert, R-Portland, initially sponsored the legislation in the House and State Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, later joined as Senate sponsor.

    Opponents of the bill, like State Sen. Raumesh Akbari, D-Memphis, called it a “waste of resources and unconstitutional” on the Senate floor. Tennessee Democrats argued the attorney general's office was overstepping to wrest control from district attorney’s offices.

    The bill was signed into law on April 28, and Hutton — who is representing Larry McKay, a man who is currently facing the death penalty — filed the original motion the following Monday. Mulroy signed onto the motion the same day.

    Hutton had filed a petition for coram nobis on March 30, saying that new evidence in McKay's murder case from the 1980s could have changed the outcome of that original case.

    https://www.commercialappeal.com/sto...y/70543045007/
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •