Opinion ID: 1889733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: proportionality review as a separate proceeding

Text: The last question to be addressed is whether proportionality review should continue to be conducted as a separate proceeding following a defendant's direct appeal. We share the concern expressed in the July 1998 Report of the Governor's Study Commission on the Implementation of the Death Penalty, that excessive delay in the prosecution of capital appeals undermines the deterrent effect of capital punishment, promotes disrespect for the criminal justice system and prolongs the suffering of victims' families. Michael Booth, Death Penalty Panel Urges Limits on Trial and Appellate Remedies, 153 N.J.L.J. 241 (July 20, 1998). The task of the criminal justice system is to identify any sources of excessive delay in the system and to seek to ameliorate them. [3] Because we had not yet developed a system for proportionality review at the time we decided Ramseur, supra, we stated that proportionality review would be conducted in a separate proceeding. It was also thought that bifurcated proceedings would conserve resources because a proportionality review would not occur if the defendant's direct appeal was successful. Loftin II, supra, 157 N.J. at 316, 724 A. 2d 129. Judge Baime has concluded: That practice made sense in an era in which capital punishment jurisprudence was unsettled and the likelihood of a reversal great. Although death penalty cases remain extremely complex, many difficult issues have now been resolved and the original rationale for bifurcation is perhaps less compelling. Moreover, this practice ... exacts a cost by drawing out the appeals process when a death sentence is affirmed. [ Baime Report, supra, at 111 (quoting Loftin II, supra, 157 N.J. at 316, 724 A. 2d 129) (footnote omitted).] Judge Baime wrote: I favor consolidation. Whatever the deterrent value of capital punishmentan issue upon which reasonable persons can and do differit is surely diminished with the passage of time caused by endless appeals. I believe that the process can be streamlined if my recommendations are accepted. As I noted earlier, much of the attention and time of the Court and counsel have been devoted to the fruitless endeavor of attempting to find meaning in the results yielded by the index of outcomes test. Eliminating the index of outcomes test will streamline the system at virtually no cost to the parties. The rights of the defendant will be fully protected by relying on the salient factors test and precedent seeking review. On balance, I believe that consolidation will conserve more resources than it will cost in the relatively few cases that are reversed on direct appeal.