Crossing the Line: Rape-Murder and the Death Penalty

When a woman is raped and then murdered, it is among the most horrifying of crimes. It is also, often, among the most sensational, notorious, and galvanizing of cases. In 1964, Kitty Genovese was raped and murdered in Queens, New York. Her murder sparked soul-searching across the country because her neighbors heard her cries for help and did not respond: it made us question whether we had become an uncaring people. During the 1970s and 80s a number of serial killers raped and murdered their victims: including Ted Bundy in Florida and William George Bonin, the “Freeway Killer,” in Southern California. In the 1990s, the sexual assault-murder of seven-year-old Megan Kanka in New Jersey contributed to a firestorm of states passing sex offender notification statutes.Rolando Cruz was released from Illinois death row in 1995, after serving eleven years for a crime he did not commit: the rape and murder of ten-year-old Jeanine Nicarico. The crime itself sent shock waves through the Chicago metropolitan area and pressure to quickly solve it contributed to Cruz\u27s arrest and conviction. In each instance the rape-murder terrified us and made us want to impose the severest of punishments.This essay explores the validity of that conclusion by examining rape-murder as a category of death penalty cases, and by comparing the treatment of rape when it is the only crime to its treatment when it is the underlying felony in a felony-murder death penalty case

O\u27Connor\u27s Firsts

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor will make her mark on the Ohio court system and on the laws of Ohio in many ways. She made two significant marks her first day as Chief Justice: she was the first woman elected to the position of Chief Justice in Ohio and in her swearing-in speech she called for review of the death penalty in Ohio.1 Both were meaningful to me personally and as a citizen of Ohio. I appreciated her acknowledging her place in history and her willingness to tackle, right from the beginning of her tenure, the important topic of the death penalty in our state

Appointed but (Nearly) Prevented from Serving: My Experience as a Grand Jury Foreperson

In summer 2003, I was a grand jury foreperson for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio. The service of this grand jury, and my tenure as foreperson, were unique in the annals of grand juries. We were selected and sworn in the same manner as any grand jury, but heard cases for only one day of our four-month term-the last day. In the interim, the prosecutor filed cases in two courts, seeking to discharge us, as being “tainted” by our supervising judge\u27s initial instructions about our duties and the law. I begin this essay with basic information about grand juries, then tell what happened to our grand jury, and conclude by reflecting on what I learned from this experience. My theme is the tension between the grand jury\u27s independence and the prosecutor\u27s desire to control it. The lesson I learned, intellectually and emotionally, is the depth and tenacity of the prosecutor\u27s assumption that he does control, and has the right to control, the grand jury process. I also learned some lessons about being a client, and believing in oneself and one\u27s principles

Childhood Abuse and Adult Murder: Implications for the Death Penalty

A jury that convicts a defendant of capital murder must then decide whether that defendant deserves a life sentence or death. Mitigating evidence is crucial to the defense at this stage because such evidence may provide the jury with a basis for imposing a life sentence. In this article, Professor Crocker argues that evidence that a defendant was abused as a child is paradigmatic mitigating evidence. A detailed presentation of the defendant\u27s childhood experience and a cogent explanation of its long-term repercussions will enable the jury to understand why the defendant committed the crime, perhaps allowing the jury to sympathize or empathize with the defendant. By humanizing the defendant, an effective presentation of evidence of childhood abuse may make the difference between a life and a death sentence. Despite its potential mitigating effect, evidence of childhood abuse is not always effectively presented to the jury. Professor Crocker identifies and discusses impediments in the death penalty system that account for this failure. She then proposes changes to the system that could ensure the proper presentation of evidence of childhood abuse. Professor Crocker concludes with a reflection on the moral tension within society that underlies the legal system\u27s difficulties: a tension between conflicting reactions that must be reconciled in the case where the child who has been abused and the adult who has committed murder are the same person

Feminism and Defending Men on Death Row

In this Essay I explore the relationship between being a feminist and representing men on death row. It is appropriate to engage in this inquiry in considering how the law has developed in the twenty-five years since Furman v. Georgia. During that time both Furman and the advent of feminist legal theory have required a restructuring in the way we think about two fundamental legal questions: for death penalty jurisprudence, how and why we sentence an individual to death; and for feminist jurisprudence, how the law views crimes of violence against women. The relationship between these two developments becomes apparent when we consider the appropriateness of the death penalty for a man who murdered a woman in the course of a sexually violent felony or as part of a history of abuse. For many feminists, the focus is on the crime and insuring that the punishment acknowledges the gravity of the harm inflicted upon the female victim. For those defending a man in these circumstances, the crime, as it informs the punishment decision, is of less importance than explaining the background and character of the defendant. While these two positions may appear to conflict, this Essay will examine their similarities

Not to Decide Is to Decide: The U.S. Supreme Court\u27s Thirty-Year Struggle with One Case about Competency to Waive Death Penalty Appeals

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Rees v. Peyton, a case that had been on its docket since 1965. Rees was a death penalty case in which the petitioner sought to withdraw his petition for writ of certiorari so that he could be executed. The Court stayed the proceedings after Rees was found incompetent to waive his appeal, but the Court did not dismiss the case until after Rees died of natural causes. Rees pended in the Court during the terms of three Chief Justices. Even though the Court underwent major changes in personnel and philosophy during those years, the Court\u27s treatment of Rees was essentially the same-- to hold the case in abeyance. This article chronicles the extraordinary history of Rees in the U.S. Supreme Court for those thirty years

Childhood Abuse and Adult Murder: Implications for the Death Penalty

A jury that convicts a defendant of capital murder must then decide whether that defendant deserves a life sentence or death. Mitigating evidence is crucial to the defense at this stage because such evidence may provide the jury with a basis for imposing a life sentence. In this article, Professor Crocker argues that evidence that a defendant was abused as a child is paradigmatic mitigating evidence. A detailed presentation of the defendant\u27s childhood experience and a cogent explanation of its long-term repercussions will enable the jury to understand why the defendant committed the crime, perhaps allowing the jury to sympathize or empathize with the defendant. By humanizing the defendant, an effective presentation of evidence of childhood abuse may make the difference between a life and a death sentence. Despite its potential mitigating effect, evidence of childhood abuse is not always effectively presented to the jury. Professor Crocker identifies and discusses impediments in the death penalty system that account for this failure. She then proposes changes to the system that could ensure the proper presentation of evidence of childhood abuse. Professor Crocker concludes with a reflection on the moral tension within society that underlies the legal system\u27s difficulties: a tension between conflicting reactions that must be reconciled in the case where the child who has been abused and the adult who has committed murder are the same person

Crossing the Line: Rape-Murder and the Death Penalty

When a woman is raped and then murdered, it is among the most horrifying of crimes. It is also, often, among the most sensational, notorious, and galvanizing of cases. In 1964, Kitty Genovese was raped and murdered in Queens, New York. Her murder sparked soul-searching across the country because her neighbors heard her cries for help and did not respond: it made us question whether we had become an uncaring people. During the 1970s and 80s a number of serial killers raped and murdered their victims: including Ted Bundy in Florida and William George Bonin, the “Freeway Killer,” in Southern California. In the 1990s, the sexual assault-murder of seven-year-old Megan Kanka in New Jersey contributed to a firestorm of states passing sex offender notification statutes.Rolando Cruz was released from Illinois death row in 1995, after serving eleven years for a crime he did not commit: the rape and murder of ten-year-old Jeanine Nicarico. The crime itself sent shock waves through the Chicago metropolitan area and pressure to quickly solve it contributed to Cruz\u27s arrest and conviction. In each instance the rape-murder terrified us and made us want to impose the severest of punishments.This essay explores the validity of that conclusion by examining rape-murder as a category of death penalty cases, and by comparing the treatment of rape when it is the only crime to its treatment when it is the underlying felony in a felony-murder death penalty case

Childhood Abuse and Adult Murder: Implications for the Death Penalty

A jury that convicts a defendant of capital murder must then decide whether that defendant deserves a life sentence or death. Mitigating evidence is crucial to the defense at this stage because such evidence may provide the jury with a basis for imposing a life sentence. In this article, Professor Crocker argues that evidence that a defendant was abused as a child is paradigmatic mitigating evidence. A detailed presentation of the defendant\u27s childhood experience and a cogent explanation of its long-term repercussions will enable the jury to understand why the defendant committed the crime, perhaps allowing the jury to sympathize or empathize with the defendant. By humanizing the defendant, an effective presentation of evidence of childhood abuse may make the difference between a life and a death sentence. Despite its potential mitigating effect, evidence of childhood abuse is not always effectively presented to the jury. Professor Crocker identifies and discusses impediments in the death penalty system that account for this failure. She then proposes changes to the system that could ensure the proper presentation of evidence of childhood abuse. Professor Crocker concludes with a reflection on the moral tension within society that underlies the legal system\u27s difficulties: a tension between conflicting reactions that must be reconciled in the case where the child who has been abused and the adult who has committed murder are the same person