Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44575795/Green-Amended-Motion-to-Declare-Texas-Death-Penalty-Procedure-Unconstitutional
Timestamp: 2014-03-10 02:13:02
Document Index: 505298979

Matched Legal Cases: ['in Fine', 'in Fine', '§177', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', 'in Fine']

Green Amended Motion to Declare Texas Death Penalty Procedure Unconstitutional
P. 1Green Amended Motion to Declare Texas Death Penalty Procedure UnconstitutionalGreen Amended Motion to Declare Texas Death Penalty Procedure UnconstitutionalRatings: (0)|Views: 2,796|Likes: 0Published by Mark W. BennettDefense's amended motion in the John Green case, in Judge Kevin Fine's court, to declare Texas's death penalty procedure statute unconstitutional because it creates a significant risk that an innocent person will be executed, in violation of the Eight Amendment to the US Constitution.Defense's amended motion in the John Green case, in Judge Kevin Fine's court, to declare Texas's death penalty procedure statute unconstitutional because it creates a significant risk that an innocent person will be executed, in violation of the Eight Amendment to the US Constitution.More info:Categories:Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Mark W. Bennett on Dec 03, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44575795/Green-Amended-Motion-to-Declare-Texas-Death-Penalty-Procedure-Unconstitutional12/03/2010pdftextoriginal Cause No. 1170853STATE OF TEXAS §IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF§v. §HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,§JOHN E. GREEN §177
JUDICIAL DISTRICTAMENDED MOTION TO DECLARE ARTICLE 37.071,§ 2 OF THETEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREUNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIEDTO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW JOHN GREEN
, by counsel, and respectfully requests that the Courtdeclare Article 37.071, § 2 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutional as applied,pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, andArticle 1, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution. In support of this request, Mr. Green sets forththe following:
Article 37.071, § 2 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure [hereafter, “the Texas deathpenalty statute”] is unconstitutional as applied because its application has created a substantialrisk that innocent people have been, and will be, convicted and executed. This risk has comeabout because of the operation of at least fourteen factors which, cumulatively or in combination,“would seem inevitably to enhance the risk of an unwarranted conviction,”
, 447U.S. 625, 637 (1980), in individual cases. Five of these factors are special features of deathpenalty cases that make such cases peculiarly vulnerable to the danger of convicting an innocentperson. The other nine factors, arising from Texas criminal procedure, exacerbate the risks of wrongful conviction associated with the death-penalty-specific factors. These factors, in various
combinations, have led to the conviction and death sentencing of innocent people in Texas. Thecase of Ernest Ray Willis, convicted and sentenced to death in Pecos County in 1987 – who wasgranted a new trial in 2004 and whose charges were then dropped by the district attorney –exemplifies such a case. Mr. Willis’ case also shows that people wrongfully convicted andsentenced to death in Texas who are
not executed, are spared not because the Texas system has asafety net adequate to catch every such person, but rather, because of fortuitous factors: the extraattention given to capital cases because of the stakes involved, the luck of having world-classhabeas corpus lawyers take one’s case, and a confession by the real killer. When the fortuitiesthat lead to the exoneration of every wrongfully convicted and condemned person are taken intoaccount along with the likely rate of wrongful conviction in capital cases, there is a very strongprobability that Texas has executed twelve or more innocent people. The protection againstcruel and unusual punishment afforded by the United States and Texas Constitutions cannottolerate a capital punishment process that gives rise to this kind of risk.
II. THE ISSUES THAT THE COURT HAS ASKED THE PARTIES TO ADDRESS
On March 26, 2010, this Court set out the issues to be addressed:The issue or issues that must be addressed are, first, whether or not it is a violationof due process to execute an innocent defendant; second, it must be determinedwhether or not the State of Texas under 37.07(1) [sic] has, in fact, executed aninnocent person; and, finally, if they have executed an innocent person, does thedefendant … have a basis to raise a claim based on these facts.Transcript of Hearing, March 26, 2010,
, No. 1170853, at 4.Mr. Green addresses the first issue in the next section of his amended motion. He urgesthe Court to recast the issue as one under the Eighth Amendment rather than the Due ProcessClause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, he argues that under the Eighth Amendment,
capital punishment schemes that create a “substantial risk” that innocent people are wrongfullyconvicted and sentenced to death are constitutionally unacceptable. He acknowledges that theDue Process Clause does not require the elimination of e
of convicting aninnocent person – and thus, may tolerate the execution of an innocent person – but hedistinguishes Due Process from Eighth Amendment jurisprudence which, at its core, isconcerned with whether there are systemic factors that put at substantial risk the reliability of determinations of both guilt and innocence and the sentence in a capital trial.In light of his response to the first issue, Mr. Green also urges the Court to recast thesecond and third issues to follow from his recasting of the first issue:The second issue becomes: whether there are sufficient risk factors inhering in theapplication of Texas’ capital punishment statute that its application creates a constitutionallyunacceptable risk of convicting and sentencing an innocent person to death. Mr. Green addressesthis issue in section IV of the amended motion.The third issue, finally, becomes: whether innocent people have been convicted andsentenced to death in Texas, and if so, how this bears on Mr. Green’s claim that the Texassystem creates a constitutionally unacceptable risk of wrongfully convicting innocent people andsentencing them to death. Mr. Green will address this issue in section V of the amended motion.
III. MR. GREEN STATES A CLAIM UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
Addressing the holding of Furman v. Georgia
, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), four years later in
, 428 U.S. 153, 188 (1976), the Supreme Court explained that in
itheld, under the Eighth Amendment, that the “death penalty could not be imposed undersentencing procedures that created a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd noteLikeEmbedShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred reads1 thousand readsLoad more
Recommended Green Amicus Brief in Opposition to Mandamus
Green State Motion Proceed to Trial
John Green case CCA Mandamus Denial
Motion to Hold that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Arti...
John Green State Request for Reconsideration of Mandamus
John Green Brief in Opposition to State's Request for Rec...
Order Denying Motion to Hold Death Penalty Unconstitutional Mark W. Bennett
Green Defense Mandamus Brief
Green Defense Brief in Opposition to Mandamus
State v. Green Hearing Expert Testimony
More From This User Robert S Bennett Disbarment Petition
Texas Criminal Jury Selection
Harris County 2011 Court Appointed Lawyers
Emmette Flynn: Following Orders
Collier v Gurstel Chargo Complaint
06-10-00027-cv
Harris County Lawyer Letters 20111004
Defendant's Motion to Enforce Plea Agreement
gov.uscourts.mdd.181781.131.0
Randazza Response to Thedala Magee
Thedala Magee Demand Letter
Lawyer Charles Ray Johnson, Jr. Grievance
Rakofsky v. Internet St. Thomas and Hackerson Settlement
Wolk Petition
Best Motion in Limine
DOE Title IX Sexual Assault Letter
Stanford University ASSU Constitution of 2007
Nashville Airport Arrest Affidavit
Gary Trichter's Arguments in Favor of TCDLA Bylaw Changes
TCDLA Proposed Bylaw Changes
Rakofsky v. Internet Amended
Borzouye Withdrawal Letter
ACLU Letter Re John Clinton's Jesus Judging
Judge Clinton Jesus Conditions
RecommendedGreen Amicus Brief in Opposition to M...Mark W. BennettBrief filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals by amici curiae in opposit...Green State Motion Proceed to TrialMark W. BennettHarris County DA's motion to proceed to trial under Texas Code of Criminal Pr...John Green case CCA Mandamus DenialMark W. BennettTexas Court of Criminal Appeals' order denying mandamus in State v. John Green.Motion to Hold that Texas Code of Cri...Mark W. BennettTexas judge holds statute defining procedure in Texas capital cases unconstit...John Green State Request for Reconsid...Mark W. BennettState's request that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reconsider its denia...John Green Brief in Opposition to Sta...Mark W. BennettDefendant's brief in opposition to State's second attempt to stop block the h...Order Denying Motion to Hold Death Pe...Mark W. BennettMotion to Declare Death Penalty Unconstitutional Based on Texas' Lethal Injec...Green Defense Mandamus BriefMark W. BennettDefense brief to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in opposition to mandamus, f...Green Defense Brief in Opposition to ...Mark W. BennettThe defense's brief in opposition to the States's petition for leave to file ...State v. Green Hearing Expert TestimonyMark W. BennettList of defense expert witnesses to testify before Judge Kevin Fine in the he...Previous|NextPage 1 of 3