Opinion ID: 1964239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: coercion by threat of electrocution

Text: Finally, Lotter alleges that he should have been granted postconviction relief, because Nissen's testimony against him was coerced by the threat of death by electrocution. In this regard, Lotter argues that there are no issues of fact in dispute and that the court simply should have granted postconviction relief with or without an evidentiary hearing. [19] It is prosecutorial misconduct and a violation of a defendant's due process right to a fair trial to obtain testimony through violence. [64] Recently, in State v. Mata , we considered evolving standards of decency and concluded that death by electrocution resulted in `unnecessary pain, suffering, and torture' for some condemned prisoners and was unconstitutional. [65] Lotter derives from this that Nissen's testimony pursuant to a plea bargain, wherein the State agreed not to pursue the death penalty (at that time, through electrocution), was unconstitutionally coerced by the threat of torture. [20, 21] A witness' testimony is not the result of unconstitutional coercion simply because it is motivated by a legitimate fear of a death sentence. [66] True promises of leniency are not proscribed when made by persons authorized to make them. [67] Thus, it is permissible for the State to make promises of immunity or pardon to witnesses in return for testimonial confessions and to make promises of reduced charges or reduced sentences tendered to defendants and potential defendants by plea bargains in return for judicial admission of guilt. [68] At the time of Nissen's plea agreement with the State, death by electrocution was considered constitutional [69] and the State's promise not to pursue that punishment was thus a legitimate promise of leniency. And, at trial, Lotter was permitted to thoroughly crossexamine Nissen regarding his motivation to testify against him, including his fear of death by electrocution. We find no merit to Lotter's argument that Nissen's testimony was unconstitutionally coerced.