1 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996).
2 James S. Liebman, et al., A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995 (2000) at I, available at http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/liebman_final.pdf.
4 Id. at ii.
5 Amnesty International, United States of America: Death by Discrimination – the Continuing Roles of Race in Capital Cases (2003) at 5, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/046/2003.
6 USA Patriot Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. No. 109-177, 120 Stat. 192 (2006).
7 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
8 See Innocence Issues, Smart on Crime (2011).
9 Death Penalty Information Center, Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row, available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row.
10 Craig L. Beyler, Analysis of the Fire Investigation Methods and Procedures Used in the Criminal Arson Cases Against Ernest Ray Willis and Cameron Todd Willingham (2009), available at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=10401390.
11 Allan Turner, Panel cites 'flawed science' in arson case, Houston Chronicle, July 24, 2010, available at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7122381.html.
12 David Grann, Trial by Fire: Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man, The New Yorker, Sept. 7, 2009, available at http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann.
13 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Survey of the Federal Death Penalty System (2000); see also, U.S. Dept. of Justice, The Federal Death Penalty System: Supplementary Data, Analysis and Revised Protocols for Capital Case Review (2001).
14 Amnesty International, supra note 5, at 5.
16 U.S. Govt. Accounting Office, Report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees: Death Penalty Sentencing Research Indicates Pattern of Racial Disparities 5 (1990).
17 See David Baldus, et al., Reflections on the "Inevitability" of Racial Discrimination in Capital Sentencing and the "Impossibility" of Its Prevention, Detection, and Correction, 51 Washington & Lee Law Review 359, 365 (1994).
18 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Survey of the Federal Death Penalty System, supra note 13.
19 McClesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).
21 The omnibus bill was eventually passed as the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act of 1994, Public L. No. 103-322.
22 USAM 9-10.010 et seq.
23 Death Penalty Information Center, Federal Death Row Prisoners, available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-row-prisoners#1994 (last visited Jan. 4, 2011).
24 Mental Health America, Death Penalty and People with Mental Illness, available at www.nmha.org/go/position-statements/54.
25 See 18 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(1).
26 See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (holding that it is unconstitutional to execute persons who committed their crimes while juveniles); andAtkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (holding that it is unconstitutional to execute persons with mental retardation).
27 The Nat’l Alliance on Mental Illness, Double Tragedies: Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty for People with Severe Mental Illness, 1 (2009).
28 Jon B. Gould & Lisa Greenman, Report to the Committee on Defender Services Judicial Conference of the United States: Update on the Cost and Quality of Defense Representation in Federal Death Penalty Cases 44 (2010), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/AppointmentOfCounsel/FDPC2010.pdf#page=1 (finding that individuals facing federal capital prosecution and whose defense costs were in the lowest one-third, had a 44% chance of being sentenced to death at trial, while the remaining two-thirds of defendants had a 19% chance of being sentenced to death).
29 Id. at 49.
30 Justice for All Act, Pub. L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2260 (2004).
31 In fiscal year 2009, for example, the Department of Justice was able to award $1,828,433 in grants for capital training under JFAA based on the amount Congress appropriated. U.S. Dept. of Justice, FY 2009 Capital Case Litigation Initiative Funding Results, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/funding/09CCLIAwards.pdf.
32 Alex J. Hurder, Whatever you think about the death penalty, a system that will take life must first give justice, Human Rights (Winter 1997) available at http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter97/death.html.
33 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3005, 3006A, 3599; 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
34 See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et. seq. These provisions govern procedures for post-conviction collateral review from convictions obtained in both state and federal court.
35 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) bars any successive petitions for claims where new evidence is presented, unless the petitioner can show that “but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
36 Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (holding statute of limitations runs from date new rule is recognized by U.S. Supreme Court, not when the rule is made retroactive).
37 Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (holding courts may dismiss habeas petition sua sponte for statute of limitations violation even if state forfeited the defense).
38 Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (holding state petition that is dismissed as time-barred was not properly filed and, thus, cannot toll statute of limitations for federal habeas petition).
39 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 (2004).
40 28 U.S.C. §§ 2261-66.
41 Id. at § 2265.
42 As originally passed, the Opt-In Procedure was designed to establish “a mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent counsel in State post-conviction proceedings brought by indigent prisoners,” and required “standards of competency for the appointment of such counsel.” Pub L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, § 107 (1996).
43 Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549 (2010).
44 Id. at 2553.
45 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Survey of the Federal Death Penalty System, supra note 13; see also, U.S. Dept. of Justice, The Federal Death Penalty System: Supplementary Data, Analysis and Revised Protocols for Capital Case Review, supra note 13.
47 USAM 9-10.010 et seq.
48 Mental Health America, Death Penalty and People with Mental Illness available at www.nmha.org/go/position-statements/54.
49 See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (holding that it is unconstitutional to execute persons who committed their crimes while juveniles).
50 See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (holding that it is unconstitutional to execute persons with mental retardation).
51 American Bar Association, Death Penalty Representation Project, available at http://new.abanet.org/DeathPenalty/RepresentationProject/Pages/FAQ.aspx (last visited Jan 5, 2011); National Center for State Courts, Indigent Defense FAQ, available at http://www.ncsc.org/topics/access-and-fairness/indigent-defense/faq.aspx.
52 Gould & Greenman, supra note 28, at 43-44.
53 Id. at 49.
54 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3005, 3006A, 3599, and 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
56 See generally Indigent Defense, Smart on Crime (2011).
57 See 18 U.S.C. § 3599.
58 See 42 U.S.C. § 14163 et seq.
60 American Bar Association, Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (2003).
61 See generally Indigent Defense, Smart on Crime (2011) (discussing the Access to Justice Initiative).